AssemblyBoard

So what are you all thinking?  Now that it has been proven that George W. (Not G) lied about WMD?  100O's civilians dead, maimed for life, wounded.  100s of U.S. soldiers  Dead, today life in IRAQ is one of terror for the common citizen. Rapes, carjackings, kidnappings murders go on at a rampant pace. Somebody really blew it?!!!(For what?) and while schools are desperately looking for money, millions of jobs gone! George wants 87 billion Oh sorrey will take 87 billion from congress? Why???? Were France/ Germany correct?  Common all you "Patriot Warriors!"  where are you now?

Dave,

Again, I ask you...why does it matter how evolved hydrogen behaves?

Tom

Dave,

I'm not a super big fan of Dubya, but I know enough Iraqi-Americans to know the thousand's maimed and dead in Iraq preceded Daubya's little invasion. Dave, have you talked to any Iraqi's about this? I have yet to find one who is not triumphantly happy that not only Saddam, but his sons are now it is hoped only a sad part of their history. 87 million not withstanding and my disagreement with the war I'm glad another depot has been removed.

If we had done nothing and one day Saddam used a WMS on another country everyone would ask "Why didn't we get him while we had the chance?" After WW2 1000's of Germans were maimed and killed, and thousands of US troops were killed too, but a mad man named Hitler had been removed. The US then helped rebuild the same country it had destroyed(just as we are doing in Iraq) and today Germany is one of the strongest countries in the world--and so is Japan, another country we devastated, and both democracies instead of dictatorships. Was it worth it to invade Iraq? We will really never know to what extent--because the evil that could have broken forth was stopped before it could grow into another Hitler or worse.


--Joe

Tom, if we are the product of evolution then many miracles are the result, (actually a miracle is a supernatural phenomenon in the evolutionary sence it would be natural to have a conscience) read Telliard Chardens book "The Divine Millue" one a moral conscience. Yes I have one! Yes I think about the children who were insinerated by our bombs!  I think about their families etc... I wonder at the rich and powerful people who controle our country?  Why did we invade/slaughter innocent people when we were not under attack?  Does it concern you that you helped pay for it?  Does it concern you that our media spends unreasonable amount of time, money , energy covering Bill and Monica and yet has very little account of Georges lies? Where is your conscience?  Are you happy to maintain your American lifestyle at the expence of others? WWJD?

I would like to elaberate on Mr. Rumsfield comment, "We need to fight the current terrorism (in Iraq) with intelligence"  Yea,  just like we did in Viet Nam, Just like the Brits do in Ireland and just like the Isrealis are in their country! The truth (And He knows it!) is that no one can ever win in this situation. Gee am I a genius because I saw it comming or maby there is another motive? One we are unwilling to confront?  Pride?  Power?  Brutality? Yes I have listen to many firsthand account from Iraqi people.  They are angry because this all happened as a result of U.S. politics.  What disturbs me is the lack of Christians who are speaking out against what is clearly Sin!!!! What it looks like to me is that twenty years from now you guys will say things like "Yep, that sure was wrong what we did!"

I was neutral on the decision to invade Iraq. I do have some serious problems with our President's Christian testimony. When it comes to the way he makes decisions about the nation's future, the facts really show him to be nothing more than another compromising politician, fair Christian speech notwithstanding. I speak in particular about his lack of honesty and transparency in the business involvements of his vice president. The former and probably current policy toward Iraq has more to do with the vested interests of trans-national corporations than it has to do with terror and justice. The same applies to what they did to Milosovic in Serbia. Funny how both he and Saddam refused to sign when the globalists came calling. Noriega was another one who refused to play ball. Some of you know exactly of what I speak. No question that the death and suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people by our sanctions was unconscienable.  Problem is that the vast majority of Americans are remarkably ignorant about things the major networks will not provide useful and relevant information about. Just my two cents Dave.
Verne

Thanx Verne it is refreshing to read your post Obviously you think about these things!

No offense Dave M and Verne, but I agree with Joe and G.W. Bush.
The war is basically over. Hopefully further deaths as a result of it will be zero or minimal. If Sad-am (as Bush Sr. used to pronounce his name) was still in power more and more Iraqis and Kurdish Iraqis would die; more than the death toll of the liberation effort. Bush did the right thing.

Lord bless,
Marcia

David---

You are so wrong. This didn't happen because of U.S. politics---you should know this---ESPECIALLY today. Today
is the anniversary of what caused it. If you remember, terrorists, supported by the likes of Saddam Hussein, slammed three jets into buildings, killing thousands of innocent people. Do those people matter to you David? It doesn't sound like it---because they were all Americans. WHAT THIS SHOWED WITHOUT A DOUBT is that people like that will do ANYTHING for their cause. Would they use Weapons of Mass Destruction?? Of course they would--they proved they would!!!  I personally don't care if they find weapons of mass destruction or not--Saddam had already proven who he was and what he was capable of. The fact we haven't found any doesn't mean he wasn't actively pursuing getting them. I personally, am so sick of the same old liberal line of garbage they always spew forth--quickly forgetting the horrible atrocity done to the United States, and then blaming the United States for atrocities against others. That is so lame. You are entitled to your opinion, but no, in twenty years I think people will look back and realize just how justified this all was.  Just my opinion.


--Joe

None taken Marcia. Evidence of WMDs?  By all means go in an clean 'em out. None of you really doubt for a minute though that the immediacy of the threat (plutonium enriching materials) and the link to Al Qaeda (tratment of the supposed injured operative in Baghdad) were deliberately hyped to increase the saleability of the operation? I have nothing but admiration for our men in harm's way. Those of you putting complete trust in your elected officials and what they tell you have no idea what time it is...let's face it, the dawning realization that even the most rosy scenario for post- war oil production will nowhere near pay for the cost of rebuilding now have our leaders so eager to formerly go it alone, scrambling for international assistance. I am afraid when Germany Russia and France get what they are going to require, the return on Haliburton's investment capital will be slim indeed...
Verne

The way I viewed the recent war on Iraq is that it served to liberate the Iraqi people from a tyrant dictator, and it served to help protect the American people from terrorist attacks originating/backed by the Saddam regime.  I agree with Joe S re. WMDs ie Saddam has a history of using them, and would have acquired them to use them if it suited him to do so.

The Iraqi people are possibly torn between rejoicing at their liberation by a foreign enemy, and being loyal to their Arab brothers. Kind of like I felt in my annonymous posting days (until I saw the light :)).

If it was about oil, Bush need not have spent billions of dollars on this war effort. Usually in a war situation, it is not the "enemy's" responsiblity to re-build. The Al Qaeda did not offer to rebuild the twin towers in NY, not offer to clean up the mess. The Pentagon building was also repaired at whose expense? At least the American's have shown some decency in the re-building effort. They spent the money to liberate Iraq, then they should also benefit from the re-building effort. France has a large muslim population and was afraid to side with the US; I do not remember Germany's reason. Now France and Germany and other nations want to capitalize on re-building contracts. ::)

Marcia

Marcia you may find it disgusting to know that the weapons of MD Saddam used against his own people were given to him by the U.S to fight Iran in 1980s
Americans should benefit from the rebuilding effort? Besides being mortal enemies what connection does Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussain have? I know George seems to think that somehow Saddam is responsible for the attacks on Sept 11 yet this has been proven false. Yes France and Germany oppossed the invasion as did the U.N. because the evidence of "Clear and Present Danger" just wasn't there.

Surely, Bush is not responsible for that decision. I did not say that everything that the Americans do/did is beyond reproach. The U.N. would never have agreed to the war as a number of the members are Arab or have business dealings with Iraq.

Marcia

I have to agree with Marcia here. The French and Germans hardly had moral compunctions regarding the fate of the Iraqi people as a result of the invasion. They were much more concerned that their own economic oxen would be gored as a result. Their opposition was nothing more than self-righteous posturing and had nothing to do with whether or not they thought Saddam was a genuine threat...
When the Isrealis bombed the H-E- double tooth-picks out of that budding Iraqi nuclear reactor guess who had given  'em the technology? Remember when the Mossad off'd that guy helping Iraq with their long range guns? Maybe we should let them take care of these kinds of problems... heh! heh!
Verne

I find it difficult to believe that the US would provide biological weapons to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.  Could you please indicate where you got that information?

It doesn't matter if there is a link between saddam and bin laden.  There were plenty of other bombers/mass murderers living in Iraq that were rounded up and hopefuly executed.  As a bonus, Saddam has been defeated, and the oil now belongs to us.  I'm sure Saddam was laughing his head off on 9/11/01, so this is just a little payback.  Also, next time you go fill your car with gas, be grateful that it doesn't have to come from the precious Alaskan wilderness.  If you ever go an an Alaskan cruise, you won't have to worry about a collision with an oil platform.  It's much better for us to deplete the mid-east oil reserves before we go after the oil in AK, oil from AK has more sulfur and more costly to refine.  Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was completely justified.
 
Regarding France and Germany, Iraq was their cash cow,  so the leaders of those two european countries have little credibility in their opinion on the invasion...too much conflict of interest.  

Well Dave,

You finally replied.  Good.

You don't seem to realize that if our consciences are the result of evolution based on the random interaction of gasses, then whatever anyone thinks about anything has been produced by random chance.  So, your atoms interacted by chance and came up with, "Dubya is evil".  

If someone else came up with "Dubya is wonderful" on the basis of random chance, why is your result better than his?

I doesn't work Dave, no rule giver, no rules.

Thomas Maddux

Again Tom you restate that since I believe in the possibility of evolution that no moral standards can be applied. Look at it this way!  Life is all around us that is a fact! Scientific!  The miracle of it is just as amazing as moral truth!  Yet can we apply science to your or my reasoning? It is not that easy therefore in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson we must examine and reexamine!  We must wrestle with and try our best to come to the best conclusions we can.  Is the Bible adequate for this?  The Bible gives laws that applied for a certain group of people at a certain time.  It gives ideals for us to strive towards but the truth is we must face reality every moment of our lives. We must ask question and ask them again. Tom if life were as easy as many want to believe then we would all live together and our leaders would decide our lives for .....

1. Dave, you speak much of Thomas Jefferson.  Yet you don't seem to understand what He actually thought.  Remember this?

"When in the couirse of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"...We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are CREATED equal, and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

So there it is Dave,  Jefferson, a Deist, believed in a Creator God who had infused in His creation with "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".  That, Dave, is a far cry from someone who just keeps trying out whatever ideas that come up the road, as long as the liberal elitists approve of them.

If you want to follow Jefferson, you need to find out what those laws are and obey them.

2. Tielhard D'Chardin was sort of a panthiest, who, by the way, is one of the suspects in the Piltdown man hoax.  He believed in a sort of directed cosmic evolution. (all the while collecting his paycheck from the RC Church.  Now there's integrity for you!)
  Now, Dave, how can you follow the ideas of a Deist, who belived that God created nature, AND a pantheist who believed nature was God???

This sort of thing is why I said you seem to be liberated from logic.

3. I never said that no moral standards can be applied.  What I did say was that if there is no lawgiver then the only source of moral standards is ourselves.  So, why are your moral standards better than anyone else's.  (I know the answer Dave, the "Liberal" elitists are the only ones who understand the true, the good, and the beautiful, and you are trying to join the club)  

You never seem to try to answer the question, "why is A better than B".  

4. You say, "we must examine and re-examine, we must wrestle with and try our best to come to the best conclusions we can."

Says who???  Seems to me that if we get to make up the rules, and a whole lot of people choose to believe that the great truths of the universe are found on the back of a Budweiser Beer can, there would be no basis to say they are wrong.

5. The fact that "life is all around us" proves one thing.  Life is all around us.  That doesn't tell us anything about what to do with it.

You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is".


6.  You say, "...can we apply science to your or my reasoning?"

What we can apply to reasoning is Logic, which is defined as the art of clear thinking.  Its principles are cross cultural and cross generational.

7.  As to the idea that values are in us as through evolution...since all life forms are competing for resources, according to Darwinist theory, genocide makes perfect sense.  If we kill other people, they can't compete with us, so we and our offspring survive.  Too bad for them, but that is the lot of the weak.  Nature, red in tooth and claw.

Do you really believe this Dave?

I suggest that you stop telling everyone else that they need to think and start doing it yourself.  

Thomas Maddux

O.K. Tom here we go again.   Jefferson believed in freedom of speech in order that people would not become the victims of "Those who know best"   Jefferson would allow for the examination of Evolution and wouldn't label an evolutionist as amoral.  Yes Jefferson like Washington and many founders of our country ... was a Deist.  So?  Hey Tom Did I tell you that yes the existance of God is a possibility?  The real reason I started this thread is because of the obvious blunder of the present administration and the lack of voice from Christians who should know better. Again Billions being spent Thousands dead, wounded Why? 6 months agao many on this board had a tremndous zeal to support the President  now it seems they have disappeard

President Bush was asleep in the White House and awoke to see an apparition of George Washington. He immediately asked: "Mr. Washington, at this time in my presidency what is the best thing I can do to help the American People?"
Washington answered "I cannot tell a lie, be truthful to the American People", and with that he disappeared.

The next night he was awakened by Thomas Jefferson and
asked him the same questiion. "As I was known to do, uphold the Constitution without wavering" he said, and with that he disappeared.

The following night he was awakened and saw an apparition of Abraham Lincoln. "Oh dear sir", asked Bush, "what thing can I do to truly help the American people at this time in history?"

"Go see a play" said Lincoln.

You just uninterpreted me.

I love my country.  I think it may be the best country in the world,  when I was 5 years old I believed anything my country did must be the right thing but when I got older I learned that this was not always the case.  Therefore I question the current choices of this administration.  I worry that we are headed towards economic ruin or even worse more invasions and wars.  But funny I a person who questions if there is a personal God seems more concerned than those who do?  

David,

As a believer, I am concerned about the decisions the Canadian government is making. They recently legalized same-sex marriages. The American authorities refused entry into the States of a 'gay' couple - good for them(the Americans). The Canadian administration was too concerned with 'gay' rights to free themselves to ally themselves the US for the recent war in Iraq. So, yes, as a believer I am concerned with the choices of the present Administration.

Lord bless,
Marcia

 Reverend Dave,

You said,

" The Bible gives laws that applied for a certain group of people at a certain time."

OK, let's say you are right.  The Bible merely records the religious tales of a bunch of nomadic shepherds who murdered some other folks and occupied their lands and towns, and then justified it by saying their God told them to do it.

Now, that means that their religious rules are merely a projection of their own culture, which is gone.

So, now you have preached mightily against the evil G. W. Bush Jr.  You say he involved his country in a war by lies, murdered thousands of innocent people, and is now an evil oppressor who is dragging his country into a Viet Nam like quagmire.

So Reverend Dave, I would be most interested to know just where you got the rules you are judging the evil Bush FROM????    Come on Dave, don't dodge the bullet....tell us.

Certainly they cannot come from an old dusty book written by a bunch of pixilated prophets in ancient dirt floor villiages!

So, what's the answer?

Thomas Maddux

Tom I don't appreciate your sarcasm "Reverend" Just to let you know other people whom I disagree with but  respect have appologized to me for your behavior.  Tom last friday I found out that  a student of mine just lost her father in Bahgdad.  He was hit by a military vehicle. This news has brought me to tears.  Could you come and explain to her why it was neccessary for her dad to die?  Where does the great pain and injustice I feel come from? It is in the fact that I am human.  That all of humanity is part of my family?  Who or what put this awarness inside of me?  I don't know! But the fact that it is there is enough to uphold what I believe to be right.  I find that the Bible says many many different things that can be used to justify our governments actions or condem it. The Bible therefore becomes a matter of debate.  But let me ask you "Who would Jesus kill?"

In reseponse to the Mariners,  I use to think the same way you do about Gays until I realized that a freind of mine was gay.  He is the most decent percent I have ever met.  He was raised in a healthy Christian home and has two very loving Christian parents both of whom have accepted him.  How do you treat gay people?  Is it on the basis of what you have heard or seen in the media? Do you know any gay people? Chances are you know a lot more than you think.  Many gay people are secret about it because they will be rejected.  

Let's answer this by looking at the people He killed in the Old Testament.  Then, let's ask the question, "Who WILL Jesus kill?"

He is a mighty warrior, and a God of wrath, among His other attributes.  The bloodiest day of human history will be the day He returns to this earth, wearing a robe dipped in blood, riding a white horse.

Do I really believe this?  Yep.  Jesus "would" kill Iraqi's.  He would also kill Englishman, Americans and those who inhabit Pitcairn Island.  The real wonder is that He saves any of us, seeing what lost sinners we are.

As to the story about your students father, it is sad, and I understand your grief.  One of my very first patients has a daughter that is 18.  She will be dead before this time next year, due to a rare form of cancer.  Whose senseless policy can I blame for this?  Perhaps is we didn't spend the money on the war in Iraq, but put it towards Epithelial Sarcoma research, she would not have had to die.

One of my dear friends died in a car accident a few years back.  She was hit by a truck driver.  If Americans weren't so consumer oriented,  this truck would not have been on the road, and she would still be alive.   I think I am going to blame someone for this senseless death, I just need to figure out who to blame....

Brent

David,

I assume that when you say, "I used to think the same way you do about Gays" that you mean that you used to think that homosexuality is sin. Because that is the only way I am thinking about gays. I did not imply that I would reject one on the basis of his sin, because then I would have to reject all sinners (myself included). I agree that there are many 'nice' sinners around, but unfortunately some of those 'nice' sinners think that they are OK and do not need to change their lifestyles.

Marcia Marinier

Dave,  I'm sorry to hear about your student who lost her father.  She's in my thoughts and prayers.

Dave, you said,
"Tom I don't appreciate your sarcasm "Reverend" Just to let you know other people whom I disagree with but  respect have appologized to me for your behavior."

Dave,

It seems to me that folks who claim to occupy the moral high ground and make severe moral condemnations of others don't have a whole lot of room to complain when someone calls them "reverend".
Let's see Dave, you get to say that others are liars, decievers and murderers, and that is perfectly ok.  But, if someone points out that you are acting as if you are the supreme moral judge of the universe, that's foul play.

Well Dave, if that's how you see it, that's how you see it.  But you can't cash that check at my bank.


"Tom last friday I found out that  a student of mine just lost her father in Bahgdad.  He was hit by a military vehicle. This news has brought me to tears.  Could you come and explain to her why it was neccessary for her dad to die?"

First of all, let me say that I'll bet that HE believed that it was necessary for him to be there.

Second, what I would say to her is that she should be proud of her dad, and revere his memory.

 Our country is involved in a war against terrorists, who have blown up entire school buses full of kids like her. They are trying to terrorize their parents with the ulitimate goal of getting them to place political pressure on their governments to cooperate with the terrorist's desire for domination of entire countries.  Corrupt tyrants like Iran's ayatola's, Saddam Hussein, Yassar Arafat, the Saud family, and many others have encouraged and funded this horror.  He died in the campaign to stop these monsters and to keep it from happening to her.  

Dave, what's your answer???  Would you dare to tell her that we are nothing but the product of hydrogen atoms with no explainable origins being operated upon by random chance, so that her father's death is utterly meaningless and doesn't matter?  If you had the intellectual integrity to follow the logic of what you have claimed to be true on this BB, that is what you would have to tell her.

But Dave, I'm sure you wouldn't say that to her.  Because something in your heart tells you that your head is full of baloney.


"Where does the great pain and injustice I feel come from?"

 "It is in the fact that I am human.  That all of humanity is part of my family?"

So....folks who disagree with you aren't human?????  

Now, if all of humanity is part of your family, where are your tears for the (at least) tens of thousands of Iraqi's that Saddam Hussein oppressed, tortured and murdered?   Where are your feelings of "great pain and injustice" for them?   Seems to me that you are being a little selective here.

Did you ever think what it must have been like for a young girl turned over the horrors of Uday's thugs.  Gang rape by brutal thugs, sexual torture for their video collection???

What about the parents of those girls Dave?  Knowing that their child was being treated  like that and also knowing that to speak a word of protest would certainly result in her death and probably theirs as well.



 "Who or what put this awarness inside of me?  I don't know!"

Well, Dave, let me recommend a good book on the subject.  It is called the Bible.  It says that it came from being created in the image of God, but that it has become corrupted through sin.  We are a fallen race Dave, living in a world of fallen men. Good still exists in our world Dave, though we are rarely if ever completely free of evil's presence even in our efforts to do right.

Look at WWII.  Was everything we did perfect?  Of course not.  Did we need to do everything in our power to prevent the entire world from falling under the dominion of a previous generation of monsters and tyrants?  You bet your sweet patootie we did.

This is another round in an old fight.  Your student's dad intended to see it through, and you dishonor his death by your claim that it was meaningless at best, or that he died in the service of evil.


"But the fact that it is there is enough to uphold what I believe to be right.  I find that the Bible says many many different things that can be used to justify our governments actions or condem it. The Bible therefore becomes a matter of debate."

What about what is "there" in other people's hearts?

Also, what about when you thought GG was right?  Was the "fact that it, (that idea) is there enough" to uphold what you believed?

 
 "But let me ask you "Who would Jesus kill?"


Brent has already answered you.

Dave, you keep claiming that we can't know anything for sure about God.  
Yet, you keep on preaching and judging.  And on what basis....your feelings.  Others feelings don't seem to matter, just yours.  

"And ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil".

Thomas Maddux

Sorry folks, I thought I had figured out the quoting business, but I obviously don't have it yet.

Tom

Hang in there Tom. You are definitely getting closer. Just go back and edit out the extra "quote" ([quote ]) commands and you will be home free my friend.
Verne

The problem is that I can't seem to figure out which ones are the extra ones.

Tom

This is an example of quotes inside of quotes:

---

[][/color][/b]

---

This older BB software doesn't show inner quotes in boxes the way the other BB does.

One way to improve the appearance is to add horizontal rules using the [

---

] tag.  Another idea is what Brent used in one of his posts.  He changed the color to indicate who was talking using the [] and [] tags around parts of the text.

Here is the above quote with [

---

] tags added:

---

[][/color][/b]

---

The result with the added [

---

] tags:

You obviously did. The above is perfect.
Verne
p.s. you might try clicking "modify" on your above post and noting how the quote command appear...
Verne

Tom in reply, The father of the  young girl of whom I mentioned
was not a serviceman. He was an Arab citizen who was in Bahgdad
as part of his job. I realy don't know what he thought about his
reasons for being there but I know hers.  She is devistated. She feels his death was pointless.
She suspects that the people in the military vehicle that ran into him were negligent.

Tom again I don't appreciate your sarcasm. Somehow you think it is justified because
I call others liars, deceivers and  murderers?  Tom I show respect to everyone on this B.B.
you included.  
I expect  a person who is supose to be my elder would show the maturity to agree to disagree
without letting his emotions get involved. Again Tom I never defended the behavior of tyrants.  
Rather I exercise my constitutional right and speek out against them.  Look at my original post.
Whatt I have always stated (along with many of our own political leaders is that this invasion
did not meet the criteria set forth by our own standards. We invaded a country based on lies!  
Now that George cannot get the oil out of Iraq he is now asking for 87 billion in hopes he can clean up
this terrible mistake.  Tom you seem to be stuck in the idea that an evolutionist (Of which I am not) cannot have a moral base
Why? Because morality must have a predisposed origin before it can be defined as moral?  Nonsense!
Just as life developes into more and more complex patterns so can morality spring out of itself.

Yes I can hear you laugh but did I develope this theory?  Get and education, These ideas have been around
for many years again read Telliard Charden!!!!!

In a past life a  native American approached me, "Excuse me sir but the government you belong to is guilty of murdering my people and steeling their property"  "Now just a minute" was my reply, "Let me ask you some questions about your beleifs"  The Native replied. "I believe that the world was created by Great Spirit and Coyote!"  "Just what I expected"  "Your beleifs are wrong!"  "They have no basis for a true defenition of what is right and wrong"  "Therefore you have no grounds to judge me!"  "In fact I wouldn't be surprised if my God would bring down his wrath upon you and your people."  

In Canada the native people have many privileges that the rest of us do not have. I do believe that the governments of both countries have attempted to give the native people as much freedom as it is possible for them to have.

Marcia

In a past life a native American approached me: "Excuse me sir but the government you belong to is guilty of murdering my people and stealing their property". he said angrily.   "Sorry to interrupt you" I said, " but what is that you have on that string around your neck?"
"Oh", he replied, "It is the scalp of a cavalry soldier".  "Oh, I see" I stated, "And what is that over your shoulder?"  "Oh this?" he said, "It is a bag full of clothing and jewelry from a prarie cabin we raided yesterday".  "Oh, OK" I said, "now what was that you were saying about murdering and stealing?"

In this fallen world there are only a few actual laws that pertain to this life exclusively.

One of them is  Might Makes Right.
Another is,  To The Victor Go The Spoils.

Plenty of people,  Sierra Clubbers, Peace Awareness Types squawk and moan about this, point fingers and stutter phrases like,  "You mean that if you're big enough and strong enough you can just go around and take what you want!?!"  The obvious and truthful answer to this is,  "Yes, that is exactly what I mean."

The typical person who gets all excited about global cooperation,  and having the strong emasculate themselves to make it fair for the weak, and to send lots of money to foreign dictators who rule over children with Kwashiorkor all sorts of diseases, is also an animal lover who wants to protect the rainforest, and preserve the Serengetti, etc.

They are also usually evolutionists, or something like it---just as long as Jesus didn't make the world.

So, if it's OK for Wolves, Lions, Big Horn Sheep, Elephants, Dolphins, Gorillas and Baboons, why isn't it OK for people?

MIght makes right seems like the best way for us to evolve to the "next level."  If those people are weak, why should they be allowed to live and use up our resources?  Obviously, they have been given more time to evolve, culturally.  I mean, Iraq has thousands of years of glory behind it, while USA is just a newcomer.  

Seems to me like evolution is occuring....or at least it should be.  Then again, maybe we will capitulate.  Either way it's just nature taking its course....no different than two bighorn sheep ramming into eachother to see who gets to mate with the female.  In this case, it's over oil, according to some.  (A stupid comment, seeing as how we are not going to take their oil)  Others actually think that Iraqi's suffered under Sadaam and that the world is a safer place as a result of our action.  Either way, it doesn't matter.  Just think of it as 2 sheep ramming heads to see who wins.

Nature demonstrates true morality.  We are only guests on the earth.  The Earth doesn't belong to us, we belong to it.  Love your mother (Earth).  George Bush has every right to ram his head into Sadaam Hussein if he wants to.  If a sheep can do it, he can too.  Afterall, we are all just animals sharing the planet.

Thank God for the Bible!

Brent

Good parallel here. Replace Iraqis with assemblies, Sadaam with you-know-who etc.

Marcia

OK Dave, I misunderstood you.

So...why did you challenge me about coming and justifying her father's death?  Why did he die? Beats me.  Maybe he wasn't looking or something.  Why are you asking me?


 
So now you have moved up from merely being the moral judge of the universe...now you even know what I am thinking!!!  Omniscience no less!


Dave, why do you come here to this BB with your political views?  If you want some action, go to some conservative BB and let fly.  But, get ready for some heated replies.
This board, as far as I understand, has a different purpose.


 
Dave, as I have said again, and again, and again, people can have all the moral standards they want.  But if there are no objectively verifiable rules...all morals are merely matters of preference.  

You are not an evolutionist, but you appeal to an evolutionist to support your ideas.  You tell me to "get and education" and to "again read Telliard Charden!!!!!"

I am assuming you mean, "Get an education" and "Read Tielhard de Chardin again!!!!!"

Dave, regarding educational levels, I would have to say that I have no desire to get into a wrangle with you over who is the most educated.

I am fairly well acquainted with the work of Pierre Tielhard de Chardin.  I read "The Phenomenon of Man" and one other book by him back when you were in elementary school.  However, I found his ideas so strange that I never had any desire to read more.

Chardin was a Jesuit priest and a paleantologist specializing in supposed human evolution.  He was one of the organizers of the project that found the "Peking Man" fossils.

Are you aware that he thought the earth was alive?  He thought that all we mere individual consciousnesses were evolving toward an "Omega Point" where humanity would take an evolutionary leap upward and arrive at a new plane of being.

He took a very flawed idea, (Darwinism), to account for the emergence of consciousness. Then he used it as a paradigm for the entire universe.  This is speculation times speculation.

The New Age whacko belief in the "Geia Hypothesis" is largely based on his ideas.  I must confess that I'm not impressed with this line of thought.

Finally Dave, you said,

"Just as life developes into more and more complex patterns so can morality spring out of itself."

Morality could only "spring out of itself" if it existed before it "sprang".  If it already existed, why would it need to "spring out"?

I would be so bold as to suggest that you don't introduce the word "nonsense" in posts where you make statments like that.

Thomas Maddux

Tom a few months ago I posted my fears about the present administrations threats to invade Iraq.  I posted my concerns that this action was unfounded, irresponsible and would lead our country into a situation that it may regret.  Now that all of this has come to pass I wonder at your attempts to change the subject.  The real issue is my belief system??? No, Tom I can't read your mind but when you call me names what am I supose to think? You supportted the invasion correct? Thank You for correcting my spelling  Tielhard de Charden  shows us that just as man (could be evolving) so the spiritual and moral aspects of man.  Look at history Tom today millions are living longer healthier lives, technology has solved many many problems because of all the good man has accomplished in medicine and though government, look how many lives the U.N. saved just this last decade!This is what Mr. Charden was talking about!. Is it my belief system? Of course it isn't.  So let me continue Have you read the news lately?  More and more lies are being exposed!  More and more deaths are taking place!  Why? Why aren't people standing up for truth?  Tom you are welcome to ignore my post!

Joe have you ever read Ishi the last of his tribe?  How about Burry my Heart at Wounded Knee?  Perhaps this would open your eyes about "Scalps"  and "Raided Cabins"

David,

I have been trying to identify the "more and more" lies that you speak of without much success.  What would be helpful to me is if you could post a simple easy to understand list of these lies that you speak of.  That way, I might have a greater understanding and appreciation of your posts.

Thanks,
Retread

I read Meinkampf.

It was interesting, because Hitler did exactly what he said he would do.  It's a good thing we didn't try to stop him before we had "proof."  That wouldn't have been fair.

Brent

Joe,

There is something you don't understand.  The aboriginal inhabitants that had survived their constant internecine warfare at the time of the beginning of European colonization of North America have been absolved of all guilt by the liberal elitists.

In these folks minds, nothing matters but the bad treatment recieved by the "Indians" from the Europeans, (of which there was plenty). This is the only part of the story that matters.

Thomas Maddux

David----

It would do you good to read "The Journals of Lewis and
Clark". There truly was mistreatment of Indians by Europeans, of this there can be no denial. But there were tribes(and Lewis and Clark ran into them) who were utterly heartless and cruel "savages". As were the Aztecs(in Central America) who performed human sacrifices, tearing the hearts from living victims before their "gods". As Tom has mentioned, liberals today conveniently forget these things and paint the Indians as "all wise victims of European aggression".  Every part of the world has had it's "invaders", just as North America itself had one tribe warring with another(unless you're naive enough to believe that  all of the indians lived together in perfect harmony and peace.--this is a terrible lie--as they warred with one another, taking slaves and torturing. The taking of "scalps" didn't originate with calvarymen---they scalped other tribesmen on a regular basis, inflicting torture and stealing wives.). Throughout the world there has been slavery. The Egyptians(Africans) had the jews as slaves---The Zulus were renowned for their slave owning of other tribes. Later, these same africans became slaves to the Europeans--history repeats and repeats itself,with no one race or people absolved of any guilt.

Yes, but the most important thing to remember about the Indians, or Native Americans, is that they cry big tears when litter is thrown onto the highway by the white man driving a station wagon.

I think that says it all right there.  Indians a good, and if we just gave them money, our world would be a better place. ::) ::)

Brent

Brent,

Believe me, we "give" them lots of money.  It's called Indian Gaming.  

Joe,

Once I was reading a book written by a companion of Hernan Cortez who was with him throughout the trip up from the coast until after the conquest of Tenochtitlan.

He described how the Aztecs ate human flesh.  They only ate the arms and legs.  The bodies were fed to their dogs and to the animals in Moctezuma's zoo.

He said that they used a sauce made out of tomatos with peppers and chiles mixed in....SALSA no less!  

Thomas

Yes, but they had such a rich culture!  The white man just assumed that they were better than the Aztecs.

If the white man wasn't able to defeat them, with far fewer forces and better technology and strategy, then the Aztecs would still be here today.  Of course, there is always the possibility that they would disappear like the cultures that came before them.   Perhaps the continuous eating of eachother doomed their culture?  The huge numbers of people being sacrificed may have made the idea of emigration seem rather attractive.....

but they had a rich, rich culture.   Too bad the white man came on the scene.   I would love to go to one of those ball games they used to play.   The festival of Queztequaltl would have been a wonderful cultural experience where we could have observed differing, yet equally valid beliefs put into practice.   Actually, their religious practices are probably more than equally valid, because their culture was so rich.

We need to return to pagan practices in order to regain a proper respect for the earth.

Brent

while i recognize the validity of what you are saying, i think that us foreign policy should be implemented with a little more foresight and depth of understanding of the international community. right now we are the big dog, but a big dog can be taken down by a truly pissed-off pack of little dogs. much of the power in the world today is economic, and from my vantage point the scales are tipping more in the direction of economic power every day. i think its possible that military power will someday no longer be the dominant decision-making power on the planet. europe is uniting (are you keeping your eyes on the EU?) and consolidating its power.

what we did in iraq is violently attack a country that had not violently attacked us, in full view of the entire world. naturally, noone likes to see the big dog get this kind of attitude - it spells trouble for all the smaller dogs. and the smaller dogs are uniting. we squashed a helpless third world country because bush was determined to, and he gave us the propoganda (much of it untrue) needed to get his war. the arabic countries hate us for this. the europeans hate us for ignoring their opinion on the subject. canada is nervous to be sharing a border with us when we behave like this. the administration is finally starting to catch on to the fact that these predictable reactions are indeed happening exactly as predicted:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/01/public.diplomacy/index.html

we are now at a place where we are forced to dump billions (at least) of dollars into building iraq into a better country than it was before we bombed it, simply to save face. i would be shocked if we do not grossly exceed pres bush's $87 billion estimate. all that cost and effort for what? what is our big payoff? we are not taking their oil, and i don't read of anyone being grateful to us for what we did (including most of iraq). the terrorist threat towards us from the arab community has grown as its fear and hatred of us has grown. thats a pretty scary oops. and bush is now in the awkward position of trying to convince countries he thumbed his nose at to help us buy our way out of our mess. everyone will probably get in line or get out of the way eventually, but when the time comes that our superiority is seriously threatened they will remember.

this was not a case of two rams butting heads. this was a case of a ram (the usa) demolishing a hornet's nest just because the ram felt like it. and the two queen hornets got away.

as always, there is a lot more that could be said about these complex political problems, but i at least don't want them to get too oversimplified in people's minds.

brian

Quite right Brian

I wasn't attempting to justify our foreign policy, or simplify it to that level, but merely trying to make the point that these are two of the very few laws that actually govern in this life.

Might can make right either way, as you pointed out.

The problem is that we didn't declare war, and didn't fight a war.  Perhaps because we didn't have the political, or even moral justification to declare war.

We should have done so, and conquered Iraq, or we should have stayed out altogether.  Halfway, compromised measures are almost never successful.

Brent

Brian, concerning your idea that we "squashed" Iraq "because Bush was determined to".

Remember that Bush had nearly unanimous votes from both houses of Congress before going to war.  Both the House and the Senate have Intelligence Committees that can and do interview the FBI and CIA people, independent of the White House.  These guys had EXACTLY the same intelligence Bush did when they voted to approve the invasion of Iraq.

Also, the leaders of both parties from both houses of Congress were brought to White House briefings before the votes, and they said nothing whatsoever at the time about the intelligence being faulty or interpreted poorly.

Did you know that Hans Blix, no friend of Bush, said a few days ago that Saddam Hussein might have actually brought the whole thing on by keeping up the appearance of still having the WMA's?  

What is going on in the press about "lies" is actually much more closely related to the 2004 Presidential election than our reasons for going to war.  The "liberal" media picks up and spreads the party line, and the faithful lefties, filled with righteous wrath,begin wailing and gnashing their teeth.

Notice that even though the Labor Party in England is going through exactly the same issues, they aren't about to can Tony Blair over this.  After Blair blasted the BBC for their "agenda based" reporting...they backed off and said that he hadn't lied at all and had "poorly interpreted" the intelligence he had.



I think a case can be made that the terrorist threat has been lessened.  The terrorist threat didn't begin on 9/11, that's just when most Americans woke up to how bad it is.  The Saudi's have been funding schools all over the Islamic world for years where they have taught millions of kids to hate us for our support of Israel and our worldiliness, which they fear will corrupt their kids. (they are right).

Now we come to what can be a legitimate policy debate: Should we take a proactive or reactive stance to the terrorist threat.  Bush, along with Congress, chose a proactive course.  Syria and Iran hate our guts, (nothing new there).

But, they are behaving themselves a whole lot better after they saw what happened to SH and Sons, Inc.  Assad and the Ayatollas have no desire to do anything that would justify us moving into their countries....like getting caught providing support to terrorists.  I am not saying they don't, but they are much more limited in what they can do.  

Right now the news is focusing on the problems in Iraq.  BUT, let somebody blow up some american building or ship and let it be shown that these guys helped, even with money, and you are going to hear Americans howling for their blood.

They REALLY don't want to go there.  So they are forced to severly limit the practical expressions of their long standing hatred of the West, (us in particular).

Thomas Maddux

Dubyah's biggest fear has always been that he would see a repeat of the remarkable "one-timer" fate his father experienced. Although the younger Bush's war was not nearly so popular as the elder's, the fickleness of the electorate may hold true also in the younger's case...like Father, like Son...
Verne

A few years ago I took a class on a field trip to the LA County Museum of Art.  They had a big display of Meso-American artifacts.

One of the artifacts was a ceramic statue of an Aztec priest who had stripped off some poor indian's skin, (they did it while the victims were still alive...even little kids. They believed that their tears caused rain or some such), and was wearing it like a jump suit.

Anyway, the docent, a young "enlightned and compassionate" product of our higher education system, didn't want to discuss that particular artifact.  Sooooo old Mr. Maddux kept asking questions like..."what's that guy wearing?" and "why does he have extra hands and feet hanging down like that?"

Aren't I naughty?


Thomas Maddux

Wonderful, rich culture, the Aztecs!

I wonder how it was that the Mayans, Toltecs, and Olmecs dissappeared in to the jungle?  Do you suppose the Aztecs had anything to do with it?  Probably not.

I wish Cortez had not conquered these people.  We might still have some of the benefit of their rich culture today.  Perhaps in the fashion industry.

Brent

Brent,

The Olmecs were centered around the gulf coast and had their day many centuries before the Aztecs arrived.  

The Toltecs had their empire in the central valley of Mexico, as did the Aztecs.  However, once again, they had come and gone long before the Aztects got there.

The Mayans were in serious decline when the Aztecs entered the valley of Mexico.  They had had many powerful city states in southern Mexico...Chiapas and the Yucatan Penensula.  When the Aztecs arrived this area had declined and many cities had been abandoned.  However, they still had many centers in Guatemala and Honduras.

The Aztecs tried to conquer them but had not made much progress by the time the Spanish came visiting.   It took the Spanish about 150 years to finally bring them under control.  Chiapas has rebelled several times since then.  From 1900 to the 1920's it was almost an independent country.  They are still a headache to the Mexican government.  For some reason, they just don't seem to enjoy being reduced to serfdom by foreign conquerors.  Go figure.

The Aztecs moved into the valley of Mexico in the late 1100's, and didn't become an empire until about 150 years before Cortez. (I'm working from memory here).  They constantly had to reconquer people since all their "subjects" hated their guts.  They never did conquer Tlaxcala, a nearby city who naturally allied themselves with Cortez.  The Tlaxcalans supplied several thousand warriors to help the Spanish conquer the Aztec capital.

Bernal Diaz, who was an officer under Cortez, wrote that as they moved up from the Vera Cruz area, (on the Gulf), they saw wooden cages in almost every town full of people being sent to Tenochtitlan to be sacrificed.  Imagine how a parent felt when the village elders came to collect their kids to send them to the beloved Aztec overlords. They were sent to have their hearts cut out and their skins stripped off, before they became snacks for the Aztec nobility, and finally ended up as dog food.

All of these Meso-American cultures practiced human sacrifice.  I don't know if they all ate people McNuggets.  The Aztecs took a common practice and raised it to new "heights".

Thomas Maddux

An interesting side note: The Capitol City of the Aztecs was called Tenochtitlan. Apparently the natives sang a song back then which has the same tune and close to the same words as one used today describing a large California Coastal city.

"I left my heart in Tenochtitlan" was a favorite of the Aztecs and often sung at sacrifices.


--Joe

Thanks for the history lesson Tom.

Although I knew that there was a large seperation of time between the societies,  I was under the impression that the Aztecs were heavily influenced by the Mayan's,  which you seem to indicate.

I can't fathom why a culture that practices infanticide, and human sacrifice would fail to flourish.  They had such colorful costumes and rich mythological heritage.  

It just seems that George Bush is such an idiot.   Like Cortez.

We should have left the Aztecs alone, and Hussein.   Basically, everything Western is bad, because of the Christian influence.

Keep in mind that they Sacrificed only a small portion of their population.  Well over 85% of the people were NOT sacrificed.  People blow the whole human sacrifice thing way out of proportion.  The basic message of the Aztec faith was one of hope and love, coupled with respect for the earth.

The sacrifice thing only played a part in some, not all, of the temple rituals.  Again, it was only several thousand people a year, just a fraction of the population.  

Enough rambling.  Sorry for the Mchistory lesson.

Brent

Excellent piece on www.townhall.com that relates to this topic.

-Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------
'Just in time' WMD
Charles Krauthammer

October 10, 2003


WASHINGTON -- Rolf Ekeus, living proof that not all Swedish arms inspectors are fools, may have been right.

Ekeus headed the U.N. inspection team that from 1991 to 1997 uncovered not just tons of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, but a massive secret nuclear weapons program as well. This, after the other Swede, Hans Blix, then director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had given Saddam a perfectly clean bill of health on being non-nuclear. Indeed, Iraq was sitting on the IAEA Board of Governors.

Ekeus theorizes that Saddam decided years ago that keeping mustard gas and other poisons in barrels was unstable and corrosive, and also hard to conceal. Therefore, rather than store large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, he would adapt the program to retain an infrastructure (laboratories, equipment, trained scientists, detailed plans) that could ``break out'' and ramp up production when needed. The model is Japanese ``just in time'' manufacturing, where you save on inventory by making and delivering stuff in immediate response to orders. Except that Saddam's business was toxins, not Toyotas.

The interim report of chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay seems to support the Ekeus hypothesis. He found infrastructure, but as yet no finished product.

As yet, mind you. ``We are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapons stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone,'' Kay testified last week.

This is fact, not fudging. How do we know? Because Saddam's practice was to store his chemical weapons unmarked amid his conventional munitions, and we have just begun to understand the staggering scale of Saddam's stocks of conventional munitions. Saddam left behind 130 known ammunition caches, many of which are more than twice the size of Manhattan. Imagine looking through ``600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordnance'' -- rows and rows stretched over an area the size of even one Manhattan -- looking for a few barrels of unmarked chemical weapons.

And there are 130 of these depots. Kay's team has up to now inspected only 10. The question of whether Saddam actually retained finished product is still open.

But the question of whether Saddam was still in the WMD business is no longer open. ``We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities,'' Kay testified, ``and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002'' -- concealed, that is, from the hapless Hans Blix.

Kay's list is chilling. It includes a secret network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a vial of live botulinum; and my favorite, ``new research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin'' -- all ``not declared to the U.N.''

I have been to medical school, and I have never heard of Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever. I don't know one doctor in 100 who has. It is an extremely rare disease, and you can be sure that Saddam was not seeking a cure.

He was not after the Nobel in physiology (Yasser Arafat having already won the peace prize). He was looking for a way to turn these agents into killers. The fact that he was not stockpiling is relevant only to the question of why some prewar intelligence was wrong about Iraq's WMD program. But it is not relevant to the question of whether a war to pre-empt his development of WMDs was justified.

The fact that Saddam may have decided to go from building up stocks to maintaining clandestine production facilities (may have: remember, Kay still has 120 depots to go through)

does not mean that he got out of the WMD business. Otherwise, by that logic, one would have to say that until the very moment at which the plutonium from its 8,000 processed fuel rods are wedded to waiting nuclear devices, North Korea does not have a nuclear program.

Saddam was simply making his WMD program more efficient and concealable. His intent and capacity were unchanged.

Moreover, for those who care about the U.N. (I do not, but many administration critics have a weakness for legal niceties), Resolution 1441, unanimously passed by the Security Council, ordered Saddam to make full accounting of his WMD program and to cooperate with inspectors, and warned that there would be no more tolerance for concealment or obstruction. Kay's finding of ``dozens of WMD-related program activities,'' concealed from U.N. inspectors, constitutes an irrefutable material breach of 1441 -- and open-and-shut vindication of the U.S. decision to disarm Saddam by force. Q.E.D.


©2003 Washington Post Writers Group

Looks like Iraq's a good idea; so was facilitating the dismantling of Geftaky's cult, and getting rid of the Aztecs.  Interesting how the three, left alone, whould share some common things:  making people miserable, and increasing the wealth and feeding the egos of their evil leaders.

Warning, I am using the capture of Sadaam to make a point about the Assembly------

Did you see the pictures of Sadaam?  He looked so lonely and defeated.  Surely he has suffered enough.  It's been almost six months since he's been on the run, his sons are dead.....surely people should just get over it!   Why can't they move on?  All the bitterness the Iraqi people have towards Sadaam is going to destroy them!

Sadaam was a monster, sure, but so many people have been hurt during the war to take him out of power!  The Americans are worse than Sadaam!  If we are going to hold a broken, powerless, old man like Sadaam accountable, how much more should we hold George Bush and the American military---who just follow Bush---acountable for what they have done!

The American military killed innocent people!  People have suffered at their hand.   They aren't healing, they just keep opening the old wounds and stirring up bitterness.

I think we should forgive Sadaam, and just keep him under house arrest for the remainder of his life.  Then, we should withdraw from Iraq and let the country heal!  Now that Sadaam is gone, his former servants are no longer a threat.  All they ever wanted to do was serve the Iraqi people, and now they are free to do so.  They weren't that influenced by Sadaam, in fact some of them only had face-time with him once or twice a year!

I think we should do away with this scheme of Bush's, and not force democracy on the Iraqi people.  Let's move on and heal.

Brent  ;)

He was found cowering in a hole in the ground.  Isn't that fitting.  
God is not mocked.  No one gets away with anything.

(http://www.foxnews.com/projects/photo_essay2/121403_saddam/photos/121403_hussein.jpg)

Brent and Arthur you are so correct, assuming of course that the sarcasm was intended Brent. :)
It was heartbreaking to see Saddam in his present condition, considering what a proud man he was. He left the scene declaring that he was going to defeat the Americans and their allies, and then he was found cowering in a hole in the ground, willingly cooperating with his captors. And the Iraqi people were celebrating in the streets. Yet pity and sorrow for Saddam does not change the fact that he was a tyrant leader and had faithful servants who promoted his agenda, and therefore the best thing for him (and his servants) is his humble present condition which could possibly bring about true repentance.

Marcia

Do you think that it is a good idea for some of the former Baathists (Sadaams political party), who weren't that influenced by Sadaam, to have positions of authority in the new Iraqi government?

I don't mean like his family members, or really close associates, but the mayors, police chiefs, ambassadors, security commisioners, agricultural secretaries, information ministers, judges, etc.  Wouldn't it be OK if these people served in Democratic Iraq?  Should they be banned from serving ever again, just because they were part of Sadaam's regime?

Also, what are we going to do about the continued bitterness and lack of forgiveness regarding the Kurds and Shiites?  

Not everything Sadaam did was bad.  I think people just need to take the good things from his regime and move on....

 ::) ::) ::)

Brent

(The next step is to plant WMD in Iraq, you know, bury 'em somewheres, and then claim they were part of Sadaam's weapons program.)  Perhaps find some surplus stuff over here stateside, and stamp a French serial number on it, then bury a bunch of it in the desert when no one is looking.  Bush is worse than Sadaam!)

Your sarcasm is brilliant. No of course they should not serve as leaders but maybe they can sit in the back and we will let them partake when they demonstrate their true repentance.  ;D

Anyone remember this rule. But when you tell them to apply it to themselves re: their allegiance to George well you should forgive and forget.  ???

We never did agree with him anyway. We just pretended to follow him to keep him from giving us a hard time. We intended to warn the sheep if things got too bad. We had everything under control so we saw no need to change things.  :-X

Oh and while we are at it how about adding women to leadership? They have been oppressed for so long why not give them a voice?

[/b][/size]

Brent, Arthur, Marcia, Rec.St., and All,

     I have watched & read some of the news, but I confess I missed the comparison completely.  Once you pointed it out, I can hardly believe I didn't see it.  It's so obvious, as is your gift for such allegory, Brent.
     Thanks for sharing it.  It's an invaluable point.

al     P.S.-- I think it's that my eyes are still adjusting to the Light...

Yes, we all remember this rule, about sitting in the back for a month or two, until the LB's could examine you and declare you fit to partake.  However, they never taught that.  This was something that George taught and they weren't influenced by George....

Those of us who agreed to sit in the back row, and humiliate ourselves before these buffoons are the ones who were influenced by George!  Had we not been under his spell, we would have left the ministry.

However, the reason some Assemblies are still meeting with the same 'ol leaders is because they weren't influenced by George ::) ::) ::)

Are they still asking people to sit in the back row?  If not why not?  Why have none of them done this?

Brent

PS. I think that if Sadaam was to sit in the back row for a while he could live in one of his palaces again and that his people should be made to forgive him.  Many Iraqi's are Christians and they should fogive Sadaam and not talk about "justice," and stuff like that.  

God is not a God of justice, and he doesn't dwell on sin.  He only builds up, right?  (Please spot the falacy of the preceeding sentence)

For the trial of Saddam the preferred method according to many is to have the people of Iraq try him for war crimes.

If they convict him it will probably mean the death sentence.

However if the UN tries him he will not get the death sentence.

Now if George was tried by his victims we would not ask for the death sentence but would probably ask that he never be allowed to lead any Christian gathering again.

The course of action by the existing Assemblies is more like the UN we should just let him go and not bring him to task for the past. Lets just move on.

The problem is that until the people of Iraq saw that Saddam was caught and would be tried they were in fear that he would still have an influence on their life and come back to haunt them. Now that he is in custody they can openly rejoice and say what is really on their heart without fear.

If George is dealt with then people can rejoice and it will expose his Bathist party the existing leaders who are welcoming him. Also it could cause a true recovery of those who are still meeting and still think they are free but are following the old GG programming even though he is not welcome.

I agree, except that there are some hardcore geftakysservants out there, who will not reform and intend to carry the "torch of the testimony," for their entire lives.  I think the only hope for these guys is if George repents.  He has already been dealt with in the form of excommunication.

Think back to a little over a year ago; who would have thought he would be excommunicated, for adultery of all things?  (Many of us knew about it, but didn't think the brothers had the gumption....)

In spite of the fact that almost everyone has distanced themselves from George,  his "work," continues on in many places, and there are still people who receive him because he was excommunicated  "the wrong way." ??? ???  (I wonder if he committed adultery the "right" way?  I KNOW he hid the money the "right" way.)

So, in order to root out his servants, we require George's help.  Same with Sadaam.  He can help us put Iraq on the road to recovery, likewise the Assembly.

BTW----some people like to quote from this website and criticise, etc.  Let's make it clear that no one is advocating the death penalty for George!

Brent

Agreed. That would be too severe.

What is needed is for an example to go out and for future lives to be spared his deception.

One argument those who opposed the war used was that Saddam was not Osama and that we were going after the wrong guy.  So, it is not surprising the following story did not get much publicity in the press.  It is taken from Marvin Olasky's December 18th column on www.townhall.com.  It also appeared on his blog, www.worldmagblog.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amid the excitement surrounding Saddam's capture, one important story did not get much attention in the United States. The (London) Telegraph headline told the tale: "Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam." The gist: Iraq's coalition government has uncovered documentary proof that Saddam was kept informed of the progress of Mohammed Atta, the Al Qaeda mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States.

Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, sent Saddam a handwritten memo on July 1, 2001, that summarized the "work programme" Atta had undertaken in Baghdad and noted that Atta's " extraordinary effort" demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."

Smoking gun, yes?

     Not Iraq, per se, but the War On Terrorism:

             http://www.rock103.com/bin.html (http://www.rock103.com/bin.html)

     Check it out ;)

al

I honestly agree with many analyst "We already knew that!"  But that was before 1700 dead U.S. servicemen and no hope of "Victory" in site.   Downing Street Memo!!!!    Well guys it could mean impeachment?!  Still think it was a good idea?


http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/22200/

Shouldn't this be under the thread, "Liberal Dreams"?

Thomas Maddux

I guess I never bought the argument that Bush, who (according to his opponents) is basically a bumbling idiot masterfully and single-handedly, deceived the entire nation and the house and senate to go to war.  Anyone who voted for the war resolution was victims of Bush's deceit.

It seems more plausible to me that at the time, there seemed to be compelling evidence to go to war and that the evidence that every politician had was that Saddam was an eminent threat.  When the war became unpopular and some of the assumptions proved shaky, liberals (other than the principled Joseph Lieberman) distanced themselves from their vote and acted as if it wasn't their fault.

Was it a good idea?

Pro:  Freeing a nation.  Stopping Saddam's lawless genocide.  Serious disruption of Middle-East terrorist network.  Clear message to Middle-East nations to curtail terrorist cells.  Possibly avoided another attack on our soil (hard to prove).

Con:  Some radicals are angry with us.  As a result, some of our soldiers get killed.  Bringing democracy to a nation raises problems and challenges.  Not as much money available for national health care.  Airline travel is more of a hassle. 

Dave and Tom, I wish I could buy into the "We are at war with Evil!" speaches given by our president. Yet, I just can't see any real good coming out of this! I can't see anything, not even economic good. It all looks like a mess that keeps getting worse and worse. So, I do what I can to "walk the talk" of my convictions!  I try my best to work in the guidelines of our political system. I sign petitions, I try to reason with people who hold different views than myself. I march in peaceful demonstrations. I try to understand the reasons why others believe what they believe.  I believe that many of our best citizens are doing what they believe and I respect them for that. My wife and I listened to Jim and Maria Simpson on Memorial Day in Fullerton. Where you there? I have nothing but respect for them and their son Abraham.  So I do what I can. If on the other hand I did believe as you claim to "We are at war with evil!" it would bother me greatly to hear about my former Sunday School students dieing in Iraq. It would bother me to hear that recruitment in the armed services is falling alarmingly behind! I think I would say to myself, "Dave, there is a war going on against evil and you just sit on your fat #$$ and talk."  So I would like to ask you, if you really believe in what you say you believe then why haven't you enlisted?

I was talking to a Blackhawk pilot recently and his take on Iraq was that 9/11 was on our turf. Bush took terrorism right back to the Middle East where they're so fond of it. It's a bit cynical, but hard to argue. The vast majority of terrorism now is Arab on Arab. Just as horrible, but for Bush to say after 9/11, "Sorry guys, if you can't play fair we're going to send our best and duke it out in your backyard" from a leadership standpoint is laudable, not impeachable.

David,

How about stability in the world economy?  Is that a good?

If Saddam or any other Middle Eastern tyrant could mess up the flow of oil into the west, the world economy would come to a screeching halt.

All of the stocks you have fun trading would only be good for wallpaper!  They would be worthless.

The manufacturing and trade jobs would dry up....and then the service jobs would follow.

Teachers are service providers.   YOU would be out of work, or working at severely reduced wages as teachers had to to during the depression.

Saddam had already invaded Kuwait, had tried to invade Iran, and was planning on invading Saudi Arabia when we "encouraged" him to stop in Iraq I.   He was still a potential threat...hence Iraq II.

If the Islamic fanatics can take over Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or anywhere else they can...they will mess up the world economy if they can.

We traded blood for oil.  We still are.  So...you get to eat.   Enjoy your supper.

Everyone in the US Senate saw this, and every senator voted to go to war.  Including Keary.

Never mistake election rhetoric and party politics for reality.




1. " Where you there?"   What is the significance of this?    I was at Abraham's funeral.  Were you there?

2. Where did you ever get the idea that people don't care if kids die in war?  This self-righteous arrogance is typical of leftists. 

3. "then why haven't you enlisted?"   

October 1959-January 1960- Air Training Command, Lackland AFB, Texas.
January 1960-April 1961-507th Fighter Group, Air Defence Command, Kincheloe AFB, Michigan.
May 1961-November 1962-Sixth Allied Tactical Air Force, Izmir, Turkey.
November 1962-August 1963, Air Material Command, Norton AFB, California.
Separation from active duty, September 1963.   

Or, in other words, I did!

I was part of the multi-generational effort to resist the evil of atheistic communisim, which was out to take over the world. 

Evil doesn't go away, Dave, it is always with us.  Colonialism, Fascisim, Naziism, Communism, and now Muslim terrorism.  Generation after generation of American boys have poured out their blood to keep these horrors at bay.

They have always had to face the dangers abroad, and also the "Intelligentsia" at home who have denigrated their efforts and done all they could to undermine their cause.

The last time around the "intelligentsia" spat upon them as they got off the planes and called them "baby killers."

Now the same crowd wants to walk away from their sacrifices and make thier deaths meaningless.  Just like the ones that gave it all in Vietnam.   :'(

I have walked along the wall in Washington DC, Dave, and seen the 53,000+ names there.  Thanks to folks like you, Dave, they died for nothing.  If you get your way, Abraham Simpson will have died for nothing.  >:(

Perhaps you would enjoy some wine and tofu with Hanoi Jane.

Airman First Class Thomas Maddux

And proud of it!

Bro I walk my talk! You talk, talk talk! 

Here's a little "talk, talk, talk" from a real liberal.  His initials were JFK.


 " Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.    1
  The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. 2
  We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 3
  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4
  This much we pledge—and more. "

In those days, I was proud to be a Democrat.

But I could not make common cause with the leftist whackos who run the party today.

Thomas Maddux

Tom says in response to David Mauldin's question "3. "then why haven't you enlisted?"


David Mauldin then replies:


I'm not following the logic here. 

Interesting discussion here!  Have been considering lessons learned and the parallels of Vietnam and Iraq lately...I teach Physician Assistant students at SIU MEd School, and one of my PA students just returned from Iraq as a combat medic.  In contrast to the recent poll of 37% of Americans not supporting the war in Iraq, he does not seem to suffer from a lack of moral clarity on the issue. One universal conviction of all Iraqi's he reports is their visceral hatred of Saddam, a thoroughly evil beast of a ruler in terms of cruelty and oppression. As a Vietnam vet myself, I have two major concerns: the lack of a popular support for the effort, and the difficulty of fighting a guerilla insurgency, the second directly influences the first.  I don't think our leaders have done a very good job of providing the moral clarity to the current effort. I do concur with Tom Maddux that any semblance of social or economic stability is untenable if the Islamofascists are allowed to have their way. That is not just a desire for economic prosperity of the global economy, but I Tim 1 enjoins to pray: 'for rulers in responsibility, so that our common life may be lived in peace and quiet, with a proper sens of God and of our responsibility to Him for what to do with our lives.'  No one hates war more than those who see the waste, the suffering, the pain, but no one understands how in this fallen world, the only worse option is to compromise with evil. I am not speaking as a Republican, but as an American vet, and as a Christian.
I know men whose names are on that black wall.
I pray none of the current men and women will serve or die in vain.

Wayne Mathews, USN 1972-76
RVN Service Medal
Operations End Sweep, Frequent Wind

Dave the logic is simple I asked a question, "Why haven't you enlisted?" Tom's answer "Dave is a communist who lunches with Jane Fonda!" 

      WMathews, Bro I have considered the same things!  Let's say I am pro-war!  O.K. then let's get this job done!  A study I heard quoted said that for every insurgent in Iraq we need 9 people to fight him!  A military soldier is quoted as saying, "Every-time I kill an insurgent he is replace by three more!" They are having no problems filling spaces with new recruits. Yet our recruitment numbers are down to the point where people are beginning to murmur "draft!" When the war began 80% of Americans were behind it yet on C-Span I hear now that it is 33%. Now a bipartisan group of senators is calling of a withdrawal. I do not buy into your stats on general moral. I know many soldiers personally. They have a much different story to tell.
   
     I would like to deal with something that I have found very disturbing. It is the idea that if a person questions our President then he is unpatriotic! If a person points out the fact that the reasons given for the war have changed over and over then yes I'm unpatriotic. If a person points out that the rights of due process are being taken away by the "Patriot Act" then I guess I'm unpatriotic. But forgive me brothers. I have been reading about the lives of subversives. Yes bros! I have been reading the biographies of men who have done these very such things. They have "Questioned the sovereign rights of their leaders!"  They have questioned obedience to the lord's command, "Render unto Cesar..."  They have even congregated together and signed a document testifying to their intent upon treason! Yes these godless heretics! These Masons, Unitarians, Deist named George washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. If you see these men and their rabble you may want to call the "Dept. of Homeland Security"  Please don't forget to tell who outed them! But seriously if you just obey your leaders in blind faith isn't that what life was like in the Assembly?
   
   WMathews, my cousin Harold Fesperman is on the wall. I have seen his name and I have read his story written by my god-mother his mother Robbie Fesperman. Harold volunteered to go to Viet Nam when he was 18. Today his mother lives alone. She has recently lost her husband to cancer and her daughter to cancer.  Today she pines for her son. She knows he died with a pure heart, she knows his service was worthy to God and Country yet she pines for him. WMathews, 8 years ago I began teaching!  I received  a group of fourth graders. I am terrified at the thought they will face a draft!  WMathews can you honestly say that you believe this is a war against evil?

David,

     First of all let me state categorically that there is a vast distinction between questioning the reason for a war, and the manner in which it is prosecuted.

Is it not a great thing the Iraqi's have been delivered from a butchering madman, who paid suicide bombers in Israel, used chemical weapons and systematic torture on his own people, and all the while could field elections producing a 100% majority vote for him?

Is it not a travesty we have wound up with a confusing debacle over the 'absence' of WMD's as a primary reason for going to war? (Shades of Gulf of tonkin resolution, 1965...btw happened on LBJ's watch (a democrat I believe)).
IS it not a travesty that it took a brave soldier in the field asking a question to Rumsfeld to get a ramp-up of the protective armor for our humvee's?
Is it not a travesty that reservists with the least training are facing the longest tour extensions in the Army (my friends' deployment as a reserve medic went from 6 months to 14 months)?

Most Vietnam vets would agree that a lot more questioning of leaders over the definitive plan for the war there would have saved a lot of lives. Last time I checked, David, most of us are fighting for the right to question those in power. But in Vietnam we blamed the vet....doesn't make sense. By and large, David, I dont trust politicians, in accordance with Lord Acton's truism, power corrupts, and you can see it true the higher up you go. I really dont think out founding fathers trusted professional politicians much more than they trusted a monarchy. It isn't a question of blindly following Bush or any president, or senator, etc. IF you read the Federalist papers, you see that inherent in our system is a persistent tension between preserving individual freedom and representation, and preserving the order of a society required to ensure those freedoms. That tension is not an 'automatic pilot', but requires informed participation of its citizens, sometimes it requires sacrifice of its citizenry's time and even blood. But that sacrifice and its reasons need to be framed with moral clarity, which by the way, this admin. IMO, is failing to do adequately.

Let me close by including an apt quote from our first president, who had experienced first hand the cost of war and freedom:
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive how the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation."
George Washington


Enjoying the discussion!
Wayne

Wayne,

           Good point about Saddam but were you aware that the U.S. gave him those chemical weapons? Along with 13 strains of anthrax. A crushing disappointment to Rumsfeld that they are "absent". Just a note, my favorite contemporary President is Richard Nixon. My former aid at the White house to George and Barbara coworker teacher friend Mary-Kate Hagman and I just had our copies of "One Soldiers story" signed by Bob Dole at the Library together, just want you to know that I am not one of these Republican vs Democrat people. You touch on a point I have concerns about.  Given the present dissatisfaction on how our President is handling the war, 33% approval rate, and if this leads to a pullout, who will take the blame??  I believe Nixon got a bad deal. He was impeached for nothing! Yet why?  The spirit of the age was demanding for a sacrifice. So my point. Who will take the blame?  Bush?  His administration? The "Liberal Media" "The Righties"?

Just finished "His Majesty" (bio on Washington.) The Fabian/insurgent strategy is right there. I can't help but wonder why didn't our military leaders consider this??  Good conversation.

I think the war in Iraq was and remains a good idea.  I just hope that Iran is invaded next so that it too can become a democracy and under the control of the United States.  Then, invade some other country until the US rules the world.  It would be great!!

On the other hand, the US controlls the world anyway, and New York City is the capitol.  So there.

  Duck 5 points for your honesty, Tom, are you referring to the whacko congressman who  claimed that a clinically brain dead and blind Terri Schiavo was able to "recognize" and "communicate" with other people? 

Dave,

"Duck five points"  ?????   What are you trying to say?

How did Terry Schiavo get into the thread on Iraq?

Which of my posts are you referring to?

Tom

"Conservatives saw the savager of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attacker."  Karl Rove  speaking Wednesday night in New York.


  O.K. Karl beat me to it!  I was trying to lead this thread in a direction, "Who will take the blame for the war in Iraq"?  And Karl already came out with it. What he did last Wednesday was basically admit the war is already lost. This is a fact!  We will be there 5, 10, 15 years and insurgents will still be there also.  When we do leave the whole country will party!  "We've won!" "we've won!" So whose fault will it be?  That is simple David Mauldin's fault!

I guess this goes back to the adage that political debate is less concerned with answers but in defining the question.

If you want to define "losing the war" as being in a country for some arbitrary period of time (say 3 years), then you are absolutely right that the war is a lost cost.  Or, we can define the war success in terms of body count (which seems the only thing the media reports).  When we reach 2,000, we lose.

But some define the wars success or failure in terms of other objectives such as breaking up terrorist cells, liberating a country, ending the reign of Saddam, sending a message after we were attacked, etc.  In this case, the analysts can debate, but things are looking up.

David,

1. If I were you I wouldn't be too quick to use an appeal to logic in your posts.   ::)

Its not your strong suit.

2. I taught reading for 20 years, and then structured my History classes to require a lot of reading comprehension practice.  I would be glad to help you with your reading problem.

My answer to your question was, I did enlist!

3. Regarding my comment that you might like to have some wine and cheese with Hanoi Jane...

Dave, I heard all these arguments from the Left when you were playing cowboys back in the late 60's and early 70's.   Ho Chi Minh was the "George Washington of Vietnam".   The war wasn't about stopping the spread of world communism through territorial expansion of the Soviet and Chinese empires...it was about profits for American business and American Imperialism.  All the Vietnamese communists wanted was self-determination. (Which they demonstrated by invading Cambodia and Laos as soon as we were out of the way.)

Your crowd gave aid and comfort to the enemy by demonstrating against the war.  It wasn't the poor boys who demonstrated, it was the children of privilege and wealth...that's why the college campuses were the focus of the demonstrations.   The SDS leader from Cal State Northridge, btw, came out of the closet after the war and admitted that he was a communist.

During the war we killed a whole bunch of NVA soldiers.  We beat them again and again in large and small battles.  There were times when the NV leaders seriously considered pulling out.   

But the North Vietnamese generals have told us that they were encouraged to carry on by the demonstrations and sympathy they received from the American left!

After the war, over 400,000 South Vietnamese were slaughtered. Millions more fled as "boat people" and a huge numbers of them died in the process.  I used to have a teacher's aid who, as a teenage girl fleeing on one of these boats, had been passed around for the "entertainment" of Cambodian pirates. (Stop the Killing was one of the Left's chants).   Then after the Congress abandoned SE Asia by cutting off all funding for the anti-Communist forces Pol Pot took over in Cambodia.  :'(

The estimates of the innocent people he slaughtered have ranged up to four million, but it seems to have been "ONLY" 1.7 million murdered.    :'(

Are the Left repentant?  No.  I know many teachers of my generation who actually BOAST about their anti-war activities!   The only prominent Leftist of those times who I have ever read about taking a shred of responsibility is the singer, Joan Baez.  She at least has admitted to the "unforseen consequences" of the Left's actions.

Hanoi Jane still hasn't faced up to this.   Just like most of the Left.

Now we are in another war where guerilla tactics are being used.  The Jihadists know they cannot defeat us in the field.  Their only hope is to arouse enough opposition to the war so that Congress will bail out again.  They murder innocent civilians and both American and Iraqi military personell...for this purpose/b]. As well they might.  After all, Dave Mauldin and Ted Kennedy have already surrendered.

And the Left, as usual, is encouraging them to keep it up!   >:(

You and your idiot friends are encouraging the murder of American soldiers!

Disgusting.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

The more that I hear from liberals, the more I think that Savage is right, that it is some sort of a mental disorder.   Or in the least pseudo-intellectualism.   Though I know that most of your facts are very well documented, the poor misled will run the same old argument expecting people to be impressed by their *open-mindedness*.   Some of these arguments for 40 years.     Isn't that one of the definitions of insanity?

   I speak to soldiers every day who return from Iraq and with very few exceptions, the stories are NOT at all what is being represented in the mainstream media.   I know first hand of 4 individuals who served in Iraq and are going back as a security specialist,  two missionaries and one who will be a school teacher.   One of the three will be bringing in six figures in their income.  (You have probably figured out that it isn't the school teacher)
   I am not totally overjoyed about how the administration is addressing and fighting this war but I certainly realize that I do not have all of the facts.   When I hear a liberal screaming at the American pseudo-Allies to offer force to secure the Iraqi boarders, then I'll be interested in what they have to say next.

By the way Tom, can you tell me where there is documented evidence for the following statement:

"But the North Vietnamese generals have told us that they were encouraged to carry on by the demonstrations and sympathy they received from the American left!"

  I have heard this but have not seen a source for this information.   I can certainly believe that it is likely just by looking at the information over the  past 2 years in Iraq.   
Liberal *thinkers* are fodder for madmen and sociopaths.   And they do it under the guise of compassion!??   
Hitler also said that if you speak a lie, no matter how outrageous, loud enough and long enough that people will believe it! (not even close to an exact quote but the same idea)

   Your post was a most excellent one.   

C-ya, Tony   

Jesus said when you go out to war make sure you can win it. He said to a soldier be content with your wages. The Ten Commnadments say Do not Kill (Murder). Rom 14 says the Leaders carry the sword by divine right to enforce law. People can make many passages say what they want with enough intellectual twist. War or poverty or starvation or rape or any other abuse what is worse?

God wants us all to love one another and respect one another and care for one another but He knew without the shedding of blood no one would be saved. With all the talk you need to finally come to the place of action. The people of the West are standing for Freedom and are seeking to stop the rape pillage and abuse of innocent Iraqis. The insurgents are paid thugs or blind followers of cult leaders (sounds familiar) they are not insurgents who are protecting the Iraqis they are terrorists who are not standing for decency or order but want to maintain fear and disorder to keep people in ignorance and fear and submission.

I say the war against oppression is necessary to stop those who are trying to hurt your loved ones in America. If they hide you find them and stop them because that is what you do against injustice.

In Vietnam there was no clear vision of what was the cause so the people going and the people who were left in America had no purpose and they became confused and demoralized.

Iraq is not about Oil and Gas but about stopping ideologies that cause people to follow someone who says blow yourself up for God and while you are at it take a few Americans with you. If the US laid down and let Sadaam alone someone possibly even Sadaam or Bin Laden would take that as a sign of weakness and do even more destruction. It is not about justice for them it is about annilation of the enemy. They don't co-exist as the liberals view we should all do but they want to remove all western thinkers (including the very left thinkers who think they are standing for freedom) from their sight. We thank God that people do have other opinions this gives us some checks and balances against extremes. Without the liberals the conservatives would not have to think things out. The liberals need to see the actions they propose through and get out of the philosophy mode for a second. It all sounds nice to love but when the Americans left Afgahanstan the first time at the Russian conflict it destablized the region and caused the current crop of terrorists to grow. If they leave Iraq now then the cause is lost. They have to stay the course. The answer to the Insurgents is not cut and run but show them you are just as determined as they are and stay. The answer is to have people experience real freedom and they will drive the insurgents out themselves with their own hands. People who live in a closed society who are not allowed to talk are not free and they will act out of fear rather than rationality. The liberals say they care about freedom but they only really want it if it is No Cost to them that is not freedom that is a cop out.

Hugh

But the North Vietnamese generals have told us that they were encouraged to carry on by the demonstrations and sympathy they received from the American left!

True words, Tom my friend!

The last of my involvement with Vietnam was working with the 1st Marines on the evacuation using a USNS vessel, the Pioneer Contender. I will never forget the anguish and gratefullness of the Vietnamese people we rescued!  It was a bittersweet experience, especially trying to comfort a young mother whose baby had died of dehydration, refusing to let go of the only remaining possession she had.
I work in a Christian free clinic here in Champaign, and recently treated a middle aged man named Hong Loc, who fled the hell in a boat. He was so grateful for our care (although he has no health insurance, he still thinks the USA is a pretty good place to live. ) It was good for me to be able to say that meeting folks like him makes me think how much I see our efforts were not in vain!  Selah!

Wayne Mathews

Tony,



"That Fonda’s propaganda efforts played an important role in prolonging the war and increasing the death toll is attested to by North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin.  In a postwar interview with The Wall Street Journal reproduced at length in “Aid and Comfort, ” the Colonel, a dedicated Communist cadre for most of his life, confidant of Ho Chi Minh and the architect of the “Ho Chi Minh Trail” along which the North Vietnamese conducted their aggression against the South, and also one of the first officers of their army to enter Saigon on the day it fell, had this to say:

 

Wall Street Journal:  Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?

 

Bui Tin:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support for the war from our rear [China] was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda . . . gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.

(Emphasis ours)

 

The identical point was made by North Vietnamese Defense Minister General Vo Nguyen Giap, the architect of France’s defeat at Dien Bien Phu.  This was the man most responsible for the Communists’ military strategy in their war with the United States.

 

Stop the killing?  End the war?  Jane Fonda’s treason unquestionably prolonged both.  What she “ended” were the lives of many Americans, and many more Vietnamese for whom she claimed to have such sympathy.

 

Most chilling of all, perhaps, is that the consequences of Fonda’s actions did not begin and end with Vietnam.  In facilitating a Communist victory in Vietnam, Jane Fonda, self-described woman of conscience, contributed to the genocidal bloodbath that would soon follow in Cambodia."

This comes from: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420218/posts

Tom


 

Folks,

Here are some more of HJ's "patriotic" comments.


Yesterday the United States senator from Massachussetts announced that, "we are losing the war."

He is obviously carrying on in the great patriotic tradition of Jane Fonda.

I wonder how many kids will die as a result of his pathetic leftist blather.   :'(

Thomas Maddux
 

  It's so sick!  When I hear garbage about Viet Nam. "We were just about to win but the liberals ruined it for us."  Which is just the same excuses we will hear for the rest of our lives about Iraq.  People like George Geftakys will never admit to wrong. It is the same with this war.

                   We were lied to about the reasons for going into Iraq. This has been verified over and over and I know it is pointless for me to go over it again and again. What has made me so disgusted about this administartion is the way God was used as propaganda. we were given over and over images and sound bites of Bush praying, "I spoke to my heavenly Father!" "Axis of evil" ""Crusade" "Forces of good will prevail over evil" "Who is not for us is against us!"  it was so sickening like sitting in an assembly meeting and hearing all the baloney again over and over. Yet you guys are still trying your best to justify all of it!!???  Don't you guys notice how YOUR REASONS FOR THE WAR HAVE CHANGED?  READ ABOUT ON THIS THREAD! How can you???? Over 1700 U.S. REPORTED killed. Over 1000,000 Iraq citizens killed!  Have you no compassion???  Oh wait the $$$$ waisted! These people have lost their families! For what????  What if it was you???  This argument is over!  Dudes the U.S. lost again!!!  So now you will just blame the democrats?? Dudes where were the librals in WWII?  WWI?  CIVIL WAR? REVOLUTIONARY WAR??  Tom again and again you avoid the issue. if you really believe in-this war why don't you enlist??? Hey if is is good enough for our young men why not you?  Are you just like the politicians who sit on their fat @$$ and talk talk talk?  Get out there bro and start carrying that pack!


                   

Folks,

A while back a professor at are local University wrote a similar vacuous, emotional tyrade where he quoted the 100,000 Iraqi citizens killed number.  (I see from the above post it increased by a factor of 10 in the last few months to reach 1,000,000).  This seems typical of the letter to the editors page where, when answered reasonably, liberals tend to repeat the same diatribe louder and angrier as if the shrillness of their voice will make their claims true and dispell the things they most fear.  The post above is unique in that it displays a higher level disrespect of the elderly (generally liberals at least give lip service to "The Greatest Generation" even though they really don't embrace their values) in that the writer taunts a 60+ year old retired veteran to get off his butt and crawl in the mud.  Of course, this is not too surprising since it is the same self-absorbed individual who wanted to engage 80+ year old George Geftakys in a fist fight.

Following is a letter to the editor that I wrote in response to the University professor bringing context to the 100,000 number (I actually read the study).   It shows how liberals of late tend to use half-facts and favorite sounbytes charged with anger to make their point:

-------------------------------------

Dear Editor,

Mr. Gregory Reck, Chair of ASU’s Anthropology Department wrote a Christmas piece lamenting that, according to a study published in The Lancet, 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the Iraqi invasion.

The reader should be aware that the study “Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey”, was not a body count.  Rather it was a hypothetical model based upon a statistical sampling of 33 random areas that were projected out throughout the whole country.  While the study concludes that they “think about 100,000” excessive deaths occurred since the invasion, due to the difficult conditions under which they were doing research, the broad assumptions being made, and the inability to confirm interview statements in 60% of the violent deaths, the study stated that the number could be as high as 194,000 or as low as 8,000.  Further, there is no data available to certify that all in these numbers were civilians and not actual enemy targets.

Reading Richard Horton’s follow-up commentary in the same publication adds that critics of the study point out that the statistical model was not correlated with where bombings actually took place.  Rather, it was assumed that the sampling site death toll was uniform throughout the country – even in places where no battles took place.  Horton also points out that skepticism increased because of the false conclusion that the majority of deaths were among women and children.  According to a table in the same article, out of the 7,868 people interviewed in the sample, 4 children died of violence, 2 women died of violence while 13 men died of violence since the Iraqi invasion.  The data actually indicates that the vast majority of violent deaths were men.
 
Understanding this information does not imply that there is no problem or that the statistical study was completely groundless.  Rather, the study itself asks the proper question:  If we as Americans believed that the war was taking place with precision weapons so that civilian causalities are “minimized”, why does there seem to be more-than-a-few civilian casualties?  If a war must be fought, is there a way the military could be better equipped to fulfill the Geneva Convention’s mandate to treat civilians humanely and with protection to the best of their abilities?
 
While Mr. Reck is certainly welcome to his personal convictions and opinions on the ongoing debate about the legitimacy of the war, his conclusion that the study demonstrates that the war is illegitimate is a logical non sequitur.  It is akin to observing a police car that sped out of control on an icy patch, killing 20 people, and concluding that the police should never have responded to the call in the first place.  The implied question should be why the police car operated unsafely, not whether or not it should have gone at all.

The Lancet study (available online) brings up good points worthy of thought and discussion and Mr. Reck has done well in bringing it to public attention.  On the other hand, while it cannot be determined whether Mr. Reck merely read the study superficially with an eye to what he wanted to see or if he was being intentionally deceitful, it is unfortunate and shameful that someone in a position to model good research techniques for countless university students succumbed to presenting the information in such a biased, inaccurate and emotional manner.


                  Dave Sable
                  Deep Gap, NC

  Dave I will admit it when I am wrong, I hit too many zeros!  The number is 100,000. The study is mute. 1 life taken as collateral damage is too many. If you read the papers you know that our own generals have admitted at least this many. If you think they died justly then I would love to see you explain it to them face to face. "Your child was incinerated for a just cause...." 


                 a. Evil


                b.  WMD's

                 
                c. The intent to produce WMD'S  (He woulda if he coulda)


                d. To show the world we aren't going to be pushed around!


                e. Over half the insurgents and 9/11 highjacker's are from Saudi Arabia but they are my friends!


                f. Fill in the blank____________


   Nothing is so disgusting to me than a person who uses their supposed authority to manipulate and control others no matter what consequences to that person are incurred. I just received an E-mail detailing the devastation a former worker is experiencing in her life all because of George Geftakys. Because George told this person to "Trust the Lord" for 25 years they now find themselves with no retirement, no career to go back on and wondering 'Where do I find my future."  The same disgust I have for those who started this war based on lies. People were lied to. They are now mourning the loss of their children. The loss of their health, physical abilities etc...  Now they are angry! They will/are speaking out. What will you do?  call them unpatriotic? deserters? Benedict Arnold's? The only way I will have any respect for you is when you get off your cans and enlist!  if you really believe what you say you believe then do it or put a cork in it!!!  As for me?  I am on the streets! See in the papers! see on the internet! Yea I could end up in jail!  I could end up getting my head bashed in!  It's what J.Vernon calls "Where the rubber meets the road"!!!   You need to do the same!


     

David,
     I think the point has been stated and restated, but several of us have enlisted and served in the military. That does not seem to be the point here, but you continue to use it a method of diversion from the argument. You raise some valid points, as moral clarity is essential to troop morale, but your points go down the toilet when you use this careless tactic.  Take a course in logical reasoning, or better yet, why not enlist in another service organization, ministry, etc. besides the military so you can be part of the solution, not the problem. Finally, I thought this was a dialogue about the war in Iraq, not George's ministry's lack of a retirement program. why not pick on Enron executives, who flushed thousands of folks' retirement programs down the toilet.

Wayne

  I asked the question, "Is it a good idea?" Yet the answers are always "Dave, you don't know what you are talking about!" The war is about......(Take your pick!)  The answers never boil down to anything of substance. That is why I call your bluff. If  it is really as you say then enlist or just be honest "Dave we don't believe this war is worth dyeing for!" (Us that is others O.K.)  I have tried over and over to get a logical truthful answer to the question. Just like George will never admit wrong niether will you guys.  I thought that when the end comes then they will have to admit it. They were wrong. But I realized that this will never happen. You will blame Jane Fonda for the U.S. disgrace in Viet Nam!  You will blame Michael Moore for the shameful behavior of this administration. Shame on you!  Shame on you!  Where are your morals??? This last Thursday I talked with a life long military guy. We chatted. At first I liked him. He knew Bill Mauldin!  As we talked he said, "The only problem in Iraq is these politicians!"  "If these democrats would leave them alone then they could get the job done in a year!"  Then he said, "The problem these men face is when 10 of these arab guys are standing around and one is an insurgent the solution is to just shoot them all!"  I will tell you now that I have seen evil! And it is in this man! This kind of arrogance is what lays behind this administration!  I hope to God that they will stand at a tribunal for their crimes!!!! 


 I challenge you to talk to these people and repeat to them what you have said to me. will they be comforted with your words?


Ken Lay claims to be Christian and is a friend of Bush. He was invited by Bushin 2001 to stay at the White House.  Gee hows that possible???  Maybe he learned the Machiavellian principle, "Use religion as a tool over the people!"


http://www.newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=705

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=4221

Let me state once more my position and I will bow out of this discussion.

1.   I do not agree with the liberal view that GW Bush lied and/or personally deceived the nation into going to war.

2.   Those who voted for the war resolution (both liberals and conservatives) did so not because they were hoodwinked by a single person (the bumbling cowboy GW) but because at that time they understood Saddam to be a threat.

3.   The war resolution was passed because it was understood that action had to be taken against a growing terrorist threat.  Saddam’s refusal to be accountable with weapon inspectors and faulty intelligence painted a picture that the threat was possibly imminent.  Saddam had played the game with weapon inspectors for over a decade. 

4.   Liberals who at the time voted for the resolution later distanced themselves from their own vote in an attempt to appeal to their constituents and win the election on the “Someone else for president” platform.  Joseph Lieberman is one of the few who stood to his principles and it cost him in the primaries.

5.   Innocent war casualties do not demonstrate that a war is invalid any more than the multitude of deaths in the revolutionary war and WWII  demonstrate those wars were lost or invalid.  Rather innocent war casualties asks the question if there is a better way we could carry out the war and if our soldiers could be better equipped to resist the enemy without inflicting harm on the innocent.

6.   In guerilla warfare, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine who are the soldiers and who are the innocent civilians.  This is not an excuse and care should be done to the best of their abilities, but that is a fact of warfare – the enemy does not always play fair and wear uniforms.  Further, playing on American sympathies is a real strategy.

7.   The opposite scenario must be considered.  While the innocent dying is tragic, the opposite is tragic, too:   If Saddam was still in power and directly butchering his own innocent people or the terrorist cells were not curtailed and they were able to inflict further destruction on the innocent people of the Great Satan, would that not be tragic too? 

8.   To say that we cannot have an opinion about the war unless we personally go the Army recruiter and enlist is ridiculous.   There are ways to support the war without enlisting just as there are ways to fight AIDs without going to Africa.  One way, is to exchange our ideas on a bulletin board which is what we are doing.  A better question is would we go to Iraq if we were of proper age and had the opportunity and would we support our children if they decide to join the military?  God, not David, knows our hearts.

9.   Saddam butchered his own people.  When Bush refers to him as evil, David Mauldin sees this as Assembly-speak.  I rarely use the word evil, but I believe Saddam is evil.  I think the terrorists are evil who fly into buildings and want to destroy America is evil, too.  I don’t think Bush is evil.

Dave S.

I think you said it very well. The US is always wrong no matter what they do in the world's eyes.

If you don't go in. What is the matter with you guys letting Sadaam get away with murdering innocent people in his country?

If you do go in. What business do you have interferring in another country's affairs?

The World needs someone to stand up for Liberty. It is important to be clear about that. When that is the motive and you go with what you believe is right then go for it.

France, Germany, Russia and other countries are not impartial. They stood to loose out on a lot when the US went in. They could not care a less about the common Iraqi they were very focused on the almighty Euro.

I feel very sad for the Americans who lost a son or daughter in Iraq or Vietnam. War is not a video game people really get hurt and killed. To go to war is never first option but if you have tyrants who use their own citizens like dung and send them on missions to destroy other peaceful countries do you say? Let's not get involved after all it isn't our problem. People who went to war I am sure know it is not a game and many see it as a priviledge to go. The Left who say they want to spare people from going remind me of Peter who said to the Lord. No not you you can't go to be crucified. He was concerned about his own skin and that is probably what motivates many liberals. Freedom that costs us nothing. Well Freedom costs in many ways and it ain't free because someone has to step out and give themselves to make it happen. The evil forces are those who take Freedom from others and lock you with their "isms" and their rules. The veterans who died have a right to speak about Freedom most young pups today have no idea what it means or what sacrafices were made to obtain it. Now the Freedom is given to the one with the best lawyer and the victims are victimized all over again. People who want Freedom need to understand that with Freedom comes Responsibility. You want it to happen you are saying you are willing to stand and if necessary fight for it.

David M.

You are probably a very nice fellow. It is not a personal attack against you unless you make it one. You are entitled to your opinion but the Freedom for you to exercise that option cost some previous generations a son or daughter's life. Freedom is not cheap BUT it is worth fighting for.

Iraq, WW11 Germany name your unjust regime they have to be stopped and brought into the big picture of World cooperation and peace. If we see countries enslaving and indiscriminately killing or abusing their citizens we are required to act for the betterment of mankind. If they fight back we don't give up we dig in and stop it.

Hugh

Willy:  "Hey, Joe look out for dat sniper!"  Zing!!!

Joe:  "Tanks Willy!"

Willy: "Hey, Joe Did you get orders to drives the convoy ons dat road to Tekrit agains?"

Joe: "Yea! Shuks I was prayin fors Bagdad!"  "It's kinda like playin blackjack instead of Russian Roulette!"

Willy: "Tuff luck pal!"  "But KLAAAABOOOM!  "Whoa must of been an IED!"  "shucks took out dat Hummy!"

Joe:  "Hey Willy it say's here dat Cheney says that this here insurgency is in its last throws!" "Wat's "throws" means?"

Willy: "I tink it means the rugs been pulled out from under somebody!"

The aforementioned tripe is an insult to the men and women in uniform, their intelligence and commitment, notwithstanding the dialogue of disagreement of how this war is being prosecuted.  Of course, its author is an unwitting beneficiary of the freedom purchased in blood and guaranteed by a Constitution.
Remember the Kenyan embassy, USS Cole, and last but not least 911.  See a pattern here?
Over and out.

Willy: The sniper has been targeted and is about to be put down.
Joe: Thanks for the information Willy. Thank God for the night vision equipment supplied
       to us.

Willy: Orders are to go to Tikrit. More insurgents. Not looking forward to it, but it's a
        job that needs to be done.
Joe:  Funny thing, Cheney's right, we are making a lot of progress. It's a tough fight,
        but we're going to win it.
Willy: Yeah--too bad the people so against this war can't see the real gains that have
        been made here. There's a new government in place. And isn't the incredible
        fight to keep democracy out of the area a sure sign that big strides are being made?
        I mean, why would they go to the extreme trouble they are to sacrifice their own
        lives to keep democracy from gaining a foothold?

Joe: Well, you know how extreme leftists and people to the extreme right are, don't you
       Willy? The white extremists' last resort, and people to the extreme right, will always try
       to paint others as "stupid" and so much less intelligent than themselves. Don't be surprised
       if the left tries to paint U.S. soldiers as a bunch of morons too. It's just a sign of their own
       extreme ignorance. Feel sorry for them Willy--they use their own freedom and democracy to
       villify the very ones protecting them. Now, that is just plain stupid.

  Joe: "Hey Willy the cook just gave me a bottle of whiskey,!" "Want some?"

  Willy: "No thanks Joe!"  "My mother always told me that booze is fer suckers and loosers!"

  Joe: "O.K. then," "hey da Sunday paper sayz a lots about this war were fighten!"  "Want to hear?"

  Willy "O.K. shoot!"


   Joe:  " It says here dat General Rumsfeld says, "The insurgency could go on 4, 8, 10, 12 years!" and it also says that Sen. Chuck

          Hagel (R-Neb) says that "The White House is completely disconnected from reality."

   Willy:  'Ya mean because of what dat Vice President said?"

   Joe:  "Ya, what Cheney said, "The insurgency is in its last throes."


    Joe:  Pauses-thinks  "Hey willy!"  "Does this mean Cheney is a liar?"  "Or just stupid?"


   Willy: "Take your pick Joe!"  "Oh by the way, I will take that drink now!"

Some thoughts of how war was fought in Biblical times. It ain't pretty now and it wasn't then either. David God's annointed is the King and calls for the troops to go out.


2 Samuel 20

1 Then a troublemaker named Sheba son of Bicri, a man from the tribe of Benjamin, blew a trumpet and shouted, "We have nothing to do with David. We want no part of this son of Jesse. Come on, you men of Israel, let's all go home!" 2 So the men of Israel deserted David and followed Sheba. But the men of Judah stayed with their king and escorted him from the Jordan River to Jerusalem. 3 When the king arrived at his palace in Jerusalem, he instructed that the ten concubines he had left to keep house should be placed in seclusion. Their needs were to be cared for, he said, but he would no longer sleep with them. So each of them lived like a widow until she died.

4 Then the king instructed Amasa to mobilize the army of Judah within three days and to report back at that time. 5 So Amasa went out to notify the troops, but it took him longer than the three days he had been given. 6 Then David said to Abishai, "That troublemaker Sheba is going to hurt us more than Absalom did. Quick, take my troops and chase after him before he gets into a fortified city where we can't reach him." 7 So Abishai and Joab set out after Sheba with an elite guard from Joab's army and the king's own bodyguard. 8 As they arrived at the great stone in Gibeon, Amasa met them, coming from the opposite direction. Joab was wearing his uniform with a dagger strapped to his belt. As he stepped forward to greet Amasa, he secretly slipped the dagger from its sheath. 9 "How are you, my cousin?" Joab said and took him by the beard with his right hand as though to kiss him. 10 Amasa didn't notice the dagger in his left hand, and Joab stabbed him in the stomach with it so that his insides gushed out onto the ground. Joab did not need to strike again, and Amasa soon died. Joab and his brother Abishai left him lying there and continued after Sheba. 11 One of Joab's young officers shouted to Amasa's troops, "If you are for Joab and David, come and follow Joab." 12 But Amasa lay in his blood in the middle of the road, and Joab's officer saw that a crowd was gathering around to stare at him. So he pulled him off the road into a field and threw a cloak over him. 13 With Amasa's body out of the way, everyone went on with Joab to capture Sheba.

14 Meanwhile, Sheba had traveled across Israel to mobilize his own clan of Bicri at the city of Abel-beth-maacah. 15 When Joab's forces arrived, they attacked Abel-beth-maacah and built a ramp against the city wall and began battering it down. 16 But a wise woman in the city called out to Joab, "Listen to me, Joab. Come over here so I can talk to you." 17 As he approached, the woman asked, "Are you Joab?""I am," he replied.So she said, "Listen carefully to your servant.""I'm listening," he said. 18 Then she continued, "There used to be a saying, 'If you want to settle an argument, ask advice at the city of Abel.' 19 I am one who is peace loving and faithful in Israel. But you are destroying a loyal city. Why do you want to destroy what belongs to the LORD?" 20 And Joab replied, "Believe me, I don't want to destroy your city! 21 All I want is a man named Sheba son of Bicri from the hill country of Ephraim, who has revolted against King David. If you hand him over to me, we will leave the city in peace.""All right," the woman replied, "we will throw his head over the wall to you." 22 Then the woman went to the people with her wise advice, and they cut off Sheba's head and threw it out to Joab. So he blew the trumpet and called his troops back from the attack, and they all returned to their homes. Joab returned to the king at Jerusalem.

23 Joab once again became the commander of David's army. Benaiah son of Jehoiada was commander of the king's bodyguard. 24 Adoniram was in charge of the labor force. Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud was the royal historian. 25 Sheva was the court secretary. Zadok and Abiathar were the priests. 26 Ira the Jairite was David's personal priest.

David, The Power's that be decided along time ago that the Iraqi war was a good idea. The horse is out of the barn so to speak. You don't have to like it David it really was'nt your decision was it ? and listen the men and woman that enlisted did it voluntarilay, they wer'nt drafted like you make them sound they follow orders from their commander in chief, they knew this when they signed up. Yes some maybe only wanted the benefit package, but most give their lives for freedom, they are no longer civilians like you they are under military law completely different from civilian law. Maybe it was mentioned that Saddam was paying families of the homocidal/suicidal maniacs did you forget this? Someone once said, The only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" apparently you'd rather do nothing about the terrorists, eh? Well  the War's not over yet so I don't see it "Lost" as you do, and don't be surprised if you see the the boys in Iran soon I'm sure the teams have been in and out many times, getting ready to take them down. David if you don't get your head bashed in as you said while protesting you could very well have it blown to bits by a terrorists if we followed your advise on warfare, don't you know these people want to kill you david ? Please don't be so naive. Did you serve your country? what years?and branch? Thanks Summer p.s. "The Lord is a Warrior, The Lord is His Name!" from the Song of Moses; Exodus 15.

Hugh,

I’m having a difficult time finding a scriptural basis for your contention stated in your post of June 26th.  You wrote:

Iraq, WW11 Germany, name your unjust regime they have to be stopped and brought into the big picture of World cooperation and peace. If we see countries enslaving and indiscriminately killing or abusing their citizens we are required to act for the betterment of mankind. If they fight back we don't give up we dig in and stop it.


Journalist Paul Craig Roberts wrote the following:

The world press sees Bush as an arrogant hypocrite who justifies his invasion of Iraq in the name of democracy, while protecting Uzbek’s murderous dictator Islam Karimov, described by Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan as "very much George Bush’s man in Central Asia." On May 13, Karimov had 500 protesters shot down in the streets of Andijan and 200 massacred in Pakhtabad. Still more civilians were massacred by Karimov while attempting to flee into neighboring Kyrgyzstan.
It was the Bush administration that blocked a call by NATO for an international investigation of the Uzbek massacre. According to news reports, Karimov has agreed, for a suitable payment from US taxpayers, for Bush to attack Iran from bases in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan also serves as one of the Bush administration’s offshore torture centers to which suspected terrorists are sent.      -Paul Craig Roberts

 Dr. Roberts is no bleeding heart liberal, but a John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

Where is the outcry against Karimov.  Where is the outcry against China and North Korea and Saudi Arabia for the terrible abuses of their citizens?

Hugh, can see why it is wise to refrain from speaking in imperatives that have no scriptural basis?  Jesus never gave the United States, nor any other nation, the command to “act for the betterment of mankind” by rising up against nations that enslave and indiscriminately kill or abuse their citizens. As Christians, we are not commanded to become the world police force, but rather, we are to be ambassadors for Christ and to make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded us.  And in view of the manner in which this country enslaved and indiscriminately killed Africans, your statement most certainly has to sound hypocritical to unbiased observers.   And isn’t it also hypocritical for the United State to be seeking to impose a democratic government and its “values” upon other nations, when those values are reflected in some of its most popular TV shows such as “Desperate Housewives,” “Sex and the City” and “The Sopranos.”  And what about its “values” concerning abortion,  adultery homosexuality, divorce, pornography, etc.?   Need I go on?     

And why is it that President Bush feels that pre-emptive strikes are necessary to deter enemies from attacking ?  Isn’t it because of an inordinate fear of death?  But Jesus said, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell“  (Matthew 10:28).   When we have the peace of Christ in our hearts,  we have no need to fear man or his terror.   Fear, instead, the wrath of God that will come upon those who design a “road map” to partition and give away the  land that He has bequeathed to His chosen people, Israel.   

Let's not loose sight of the fact that we are strangers and aliens in this fallen world and citizens of    the eternal kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Chuck Miller

You should post more often. I don't read here much as I used to. This was worth the visit.
Verne

Willy: "I don't like it Joe!"  'More ans more of ours guys is gettin killed by these insurgents!'

Joe: "Willy didn't you listen to Rumsfeld on MSNBC Monday night?"  "He said, in response to his critics,  "actually the its the effectiveness of the insurgents thats increasing!"  "Not the number of attacks!"

Willy: "Oh, yas mean more peoples are gettin killed but things are lookin better al the time!"


Joe: "You got it!"

Willy:  "Joe are we stupid to think dese guys are doing a good job of fighten this war?"


Joe "Only 39% of us Willy" ???

Chuck, my thoughts exactly!

Wayne,

You're right that the Willy and Joe dialogue is an absolute insult to men and women in uniform. No surprise coming from David. He never served so he judges those who do as being too stupid to do anything else. What I found shocking was his use of pidgeon English characteristic of southern African-Americans. That is truly offensive.

Folks,

Dave's posts remind me of a book I first read back in the early 1960's called The True Believer by Eric Hoffer.  I re-read it a couple of years ago. 

Some of the characteristics of "true believers" are the typical attitudes and behaviors of people in cults.  We ourselves have manifested some of them at one time or another. When I was working my way out of the assembly I learned that most people tend to work their way out of the cult as they change and as reality impinges upon the false reality created within the group.

But, some don't leave.  Or if they do leave, they just migrate to another group with the same problems.  Dave has, he believes, "escaped" from God.  But the radical Left has just about as many cultic characteristics as the assembly. 

Some are:

1. The view of themselves as a the "enlightened" community.  Dave's contempt for our military grows from this.  They are stupid and ignorant...mere pawns in the hands of the evil conservatives.

2. The view of themselves as the moral arbiters of all issues.  Being the "community of light" in the midst of "darkness" (sound familiar?) or the force of good in the midst of evil, what they say is true, good, and beautiful.  All others are evil.

3. A deprecating attitude towards the present and a vision of a future golden age or utopian world.  They hate the society that supports them.  They are contemptuous of any and all who are not "members" of their elite group.  The rest of society is divided into "the masses" and the evil leaders who deceive them.

4. Interposition of a fact-proof screen between the true believers and reality.  Notice how Dave dismissed the testimony of the North Vietnamese leaders that the Leftist demonstrations had encouraged them to keep on fighting.  Even though they say that is what happened, Dave rejects it.   What is true, for Dave, is what the people who think for him say is true.

The terrorists in Iraq are currently unable to mount any real military operations.  They are forced to resort to the same suicide attacks the Palistinians use against Israel.  The Shiite militia was ground to hamburger in Falujah, and the rest of that crowd now understand that they cannot try to grab parts of Iraq.    Nevertheless, we are "losing".

5. Now the saddest part...."preventing, through the injection of passions, the establishment of a stable equilibrium between the individual and his self." (Hoffer)   

Dave let GG and the assembly do his thinking for many years.  He finally awakened, through pain, to the fact that they were off base.  Now he has a new ideology that allows him more personal freedom, but it is still just as out of touch with reality, and has many of the characteristics of cultic groups.

Dave has posted on the board that one of the reasons he comes here is because we are the only people who understand his past.  This is true.   People outside the group do not, and can not, truly understand what it was like.  People who have a different cultic background can understand much more, but lack that old connection we all seem to feel.

The other reason he posts here is, in his words, "to lead you into the light."  He has a new mission.

Dave will probably remain impervious to our arguments against his beliefs, since they have little to do with facts or logic

IMHO, we can best help Dave by praying for him.

Thomas Maddux

Chuck

I think you missed my point. GW is the President of a nation as well as believer. As believers our weapons are not carnal as states the weapon is a "sword". When you wear two hats it is difficult to separate but I was speaking of ANY country standing for humanity not just about the US. I stick to the statement. You are narrowing it to American politics and it is not what I meant. We have an obligation to step in and help others like the Tsunami relief etc. We don't need biblical stand it is common sense. I am focused on the common good and the example at hand is Iraq but it could apply to any up and coming dictatorship. As to why not China you figure it out 1.3 billion to 360 million Jesus said figure out the odds before going to war. Yes they have injustices but it would not be prudent to pick a fight with them. As to abortion etc. that is not GWs fault it is the North Americans fault they voted for abortion etc. You are confusing the issue. It is simply a two fold thought protect the Iraqis from unjustly being governed and protect the world from collapsing from insecurity. And the primary job of the Pres no matter who it is would be what? To protect the American people. You have to start somewhere you need to see this is not a theocracy so don't think you can apply the bible to what I am talking about. Much as I agree the bible is the best source that is not what Americans want they want the Constitution because the US and most countries are Secular.

Sorry Chuck you are a wise person but I think you have taken this a new direction. We would need a thread on GWs governing to cover this one.

Lord bless
Hugh

Hugh,

I’ve written out my response to your last post.  I think I have covered each of you points.

Chuck Miller

YOU WROTE: I think you missed my point. GW is the President of a nation as well as believer. As believers our weapons are not carnal as states the weapon is a "sword".

MY RESPONSE:  Paul said, “for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful  for the destruction of fortresses” ( 2 Corinthians 10:4).  And, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in  the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12).
You have to understand, Hugh, that we are in a constant battle against the wiles of Satan and can only prevail if we abide in and by the Word of God.  George Bush may very well be a believer, but he seems to be totally ignorant of biblical truth.  I trust that you are able to discern between righteousness and unrighteousness as to ascertain that Mr. Bush has made some grossly unscriptural decisions during his term of office.   

YOU WROTE: When you wear two hats it is difficult to separate but I was speaking of ANY country standing for humanity not just about the US. I stick to the statement. You are narrowing it to American politics and it is not what I meant.

MY RESPONSE:  That is the problem with a Christian being in public office. We can’t serve two masters.  Our allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ, not to the flag of ANY country - no matter in what country we reside.   We are permanent citizens of Christ’s kingdom and merely temporary residents of the U.S., Canada, Russia, China, England or wherever we may reside.  No Christian should take an oath to defend a constitution and laws of any country when some or any of those laws are in direct opposition to God’s Laws.

YOU WROTE:  We have an obligation to step in and help others like the Tsunami relief etc. We don't need biblical stand it is common sense. I am focused on the common good and the example at hand is Iraq but it could apply to any up and coming dictatorship.

MY RESPONSE:  Hugh, I disagree.  I believe we need a “biblical stand” on every issue we face today.  Common sense is based upon one's  personal feelings or convictions and is not the same for everyone. For instance, common sense should dictate that it is wasteful for  the government  to keep pouring additional billions into a failing public education system, but  the bureaucrats keep doing it - and Mr. Bush is one of the biggest spenders.  Certainly we are to help the poor and the downtrodden- that IS a biblical principle.  But there is no constututional basis for the Mr. Bush spending the taxpayers money for humanitarian causes.  Aside from the fact that when it is done through a government agency there is a great probability of it winding up in some politicians Swiss bank account,  it is a personal responsibility based upon a personal conviction. 

YOU WROTE:   As to why not China you figure it out 1.3 billion to 360 million Jesus said figure out the odds before going to war. Yes they have injustices but it would not be prudent to pick a fight with them.

MY RESPONSE:  I think you have misapplied Luke 14:31, Hugh.  I believe that if you will  read the verse in the context of the whole passage, you will see that Jesus is speaking of the cost of discipleship.  Think about it.  Is it scripturally prudent to “pick a fight” with anyone?  Besides, your reasoning falls apart when you consider Zimbabwe (12 million)  and Uzbekistan (26 million)? Mugabe and Karimov are relatively “small potatoes” compared to Saddam, but is it prudence that dictates Mr. Bush’s policy concerning these evil dictators or political expediency?

YOU WROTE:  As to abortion etc. that is not GWs fault it is the North Americans fault they voted for abortion etc.

MY RESPONSE::  No, abortion is not GW’s fault,  but he has sworn by his oath of office to uphold the Constitution which provides for Congress to make laws such as legalized abortion. And, no, the North Americans DID NOT vote for abortion,  In fact, polls show that the majority of Americans oppose abortion, but the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the  Constitution.  Judeo/Christian principles seem to have taken a back seat to the reasoning of a secular juciary. 

YOU WROTE:  You are confusing the issue. It is simply a two fold thought  - protect the Iraqis from unjustly being governed and protect the world from collapsing from insecurity.

MY RESPONSE:  Would you say that the President, the Senate, the Congress, and the Supreme Court of this country have “justly governed”?  Ask the residents of New London, Connecticut how secure their homes are from those who govern them.  And how able are they in protecting  their own country from “collapsing from insecurity?”  Ask the General Motors and United Airlines employees how secure the government has kept their pension programs.  Our economy is a house of cards, so fragile, that no amount of assurances from the government can keep it from eventually collapsing.
Secular governments can not really guarantee ANYTHING except that they will levy taxes and misspend the biggest percentage of what they collect.  So, if they don’t govern their own citizens justly, and they can’t protect their own citizens, how can we expect them to guide other countries to do so.?

YOU WROTE:  And the primary job of the Pres no matter who it is would be what? To protect the American people.  You have to start somewhere you need to see this is not a theocracy so don't think you can apply the bible to what I am talking about. Much as I agree that the best source that is not what Americans want they want the Constitution because the US and most countries are Secular.
 
MY RESPONSE:   I  haven’t the slightest illusion that this country is a theocracy, but I most certainly can, and must, apply the Bible to any moral decision that I make because it is the only standard that I can depend on.  It is not only the “best” source of  truth, it is the only source.   No, this country is not a theocracy.  It is even a stretch of the imagination to call it a Christian nation.  So, if you want to trust Mr. Bush to protect you, and you want to be guided by the Constitution instead of the infallible word of God, and you trust common sense instead of God’s wisdom, then  have at it, Hugh, but you are building your house upon sand  that won’t withstand the flood and the wind.   

YOU WROTE;  Sorry Chuck you are a wise person but I think you have taken this a new direction. We would need a thread on GWs governing to cover this one.

MY RESPONSE:  Only when I speak God’s truth, do I speak wisely and, no, I have not taken a new direction.  I’ll be happy to send you a copy of a writing that I put together some time ago concerning my opinion that this country was founded upon a false premise.  Only when we recognize our role as citizens of Christ’s kingdom shall we be able to look at the situation in the world and understand how to fulfill our role in it.
As for a GW’s governing,  I do believe he is a Christian, but one who is ignorant of God’s plan for Israel, the world, and His body.

Chuck

Chuck,

While it is true that we are strangers and pilgrims in the earth, it does not logically follow that we do not owe allegiance to anything else.  Render unto Caesar...

I know of no scripture that tells us not to acknowledge citizenship or accept its duties.


I am curious as to which parts of the constitution you believe contradict the word of God.

There has always been a pacifist minority within Christianity.  It seems to me, however, that anyone who believes in calling the police, (who are essentially hired guns who enforce laws), cannot then turn around and claim to be a pacifist. 

The individual who won't defend others calls the hired guns to defend him.   ???

IMHO, much of the thinking you have expressed rests upon the idea that the Bible gives us direction for every aspect of our lives.   Personally, I don't believe that.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Chuck

I don't know you Chuck but I like your manner of discussion. I don't think I totally agree with you but we agree on most points. You see my real discussion is with David and I am not focussing at all on GW as a Christian but merely as a President. How can Christians be involved in the world at that level of influence then. If I understand you Chuck we should not run in politics because it causes compromise in the values of Christians. If you understood me I am saying Presidents like GW are to carry out the role of President in integrity to the people and they are not electing a Christian President but a good leader in their minds. They don't want his beliefs to lead policy but what his beliefs have done to his character is what made him attractive to them.

I believe that if the US continues to honour the spirit of their commitment to Iraq they will suceed in stabilizing the region. As to whether they will accomplish the whole goal that may never happen because the cultural background of the region is thousands of years old and they are more comfortable with dictatorships and follow religious leaders rather than secular leaders. They seem to have this worship of spiritual leaders and that is hard to break. These leaders of course are just as if not more corrupt than the many corrupt western leaders but they have a power over their people to lead them to dangerous cliff maybe even a world war for their view of the faith.

I know the real answer is Jesus Christ but do you think they would listen to us if we start to talk about Him in Iraq. I mean the people in North America don't listen to us when we talk about Jesus so how much more will they not listen and they will be angry and may go over the deep end with a violent backlash that will make the WTC look like a picnic.

To attempt to restabilize the area and to bring the leaders in touch with their responsiblility as leaders to the other world leaders is necessary.

Chuck you are addressing a real issue but no one in the secular world will hear it and we might as well resign ourselves to a blood bath over there if they won't listen. The damage of Osama has already begun. When billions of people who are following a relgious leader rise you better know it doesn't matter any cost even a trillion dollars in Iraq is worth it to stop this from happening.

We are not that far apart in our personal views I just don't see how to practically incorporate them. We really only have one other option which is really our best that is Prayer.

Lord bless you brother
Hugh

Tom,

I haven’t figured out how to cut and paste on my posts, so please forgive my different format.

YOU WROTE:  While it is true that we are strangers and pilgrims in the earth, it does not logically follow that we do not owe allegiance to anything else.  Render unto Caesar...

MY RESPONSE:  I don‘t believe “rendering unto Caesar” can be equated with giving allegiance to him.   Do you,  Tom?  As a citizen of this country, I avail myself of all of the freedom and privileges that I am afforded and I obey its laws, but everything within the context of not being in violation of my conscience before God. 

YOU WROTE:  I know of no scripture that tells us not to acknowledge citizenship or accept its duties.

MY RESPONSE:  I don’t either, but that is not what I am saying.  We are to be good citizens of the country in which we reside and accept the duties of citizenship, again, unless they violate our conscience before God.  We  are to be light and salt to a dark world and being righteous citizens is a critical part of our testimony.

YOU WROTE:  I am curious as to which parts of the constitution you believe contradict the word of God.

MY RESPONSE:  Tom, you evidently misread or misunderstood what I said.  I didn’t say that the Constitution violates the word of (God (although I believe the Declaration of Independence does).  What I did say was, “No Christian should take an oath to defend a constitution and laws of any country WHEN SOME OR ANY OF THOSE LAWS are in direct opposition to God’s Laws.”  Would you not agree that many of this country’s laws oppose God’s laws?

YOU WROTE:  There has always been a pacifist minority within Christianity.  It seems to me, however, that anyone who believes in calling the police, (who are essentially hired guns who enforce laws), cannot then turn around and claim to be a pacifist. 

MY RESPONSE:  Protecting its citizens is one of the legitimate roles of government and I am happy that secular governments have police forces to protect me.   That is one of those privileges I enjoy as a citizen (albeit, a temporary one) of this country.  I don’t claim to be a “pacifist,” Tom, but I am not opposed to being called one if it means that I oppose “living by the sword” and the use of  pre-emptive strikes against other nations.   
What I do believe, is that we are told to put our trust in the Lord and not in weaponry and force of numbers.  God will defend His people.  If He is with us who can defeat us?  If He is against us, no force of numbers nor any amount weaponry will be sufficient to bring victory.
Look at the examples that we have in the scriptures. 
The Lord gave the Joshua and the Israelites victory at mighty Jericho, toppling the walls down “flat.”  Not in nor out, but straight down,  I believe it was to let all the people know that it was His hand that had caused it. (Joshua 6:20)
However, the Israelites were then defeated at Ai  because the Lord was not with them, since there was sin in the camp. Not until Joshua had dealt with the sin and had gotten before the Lord to ask for guidance did they attain the victory. (Joshua 8)

Then we read in 2 Chronicles where the Judah was vastly outnumbered by the armies of Ammon and the Moab, but Jehoshaphat  prayed and God had the enemy destroy themselves with Judah not suffering  the loss of a single soul.

There are many more examples in scripture Tom, all of which I am sure you are aware.

And who hasn’t been stirred by the account of Israel’s re-birth as nation in 1948 and the
miraculous way in which God protected them from the Arab nations that rose up against them.  Sadly, they have since turned away from God and have even sought to appease their enemy by seeking partition and give away some of the land that God had promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

YOU WROTE:  IMHO, much of the thinking you have expressed rests upon the idea that the Bible gives us direction for every aspect of our lives.   Personally, I don't believe that.

MY RESPONSE:  Tom, I’ll be glad to listen to your thought on which aspects of our lives the Bible doesn’t give us direction.  I trust you are not suggesting that I am speaking about such mundane concerns as what color to paint my house, or whether to rent or lease a car.

Tom,

I don't know where the smiley face  appeared after "Joshua"    Sorry.   It was supposed to be" Joshua 8".

Chuck

Folks,

I will have to pick up this discussion later.  I am leaving town for a few weeks.

I will try to drop in from time to time from places I'm staying or from libraries.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Joe : "Hey Willy"  "Did ya year da Presidents speech?"

Willy:  "Yea!  "We is here because of 911"  "I thought it was WMD'S?"

Joe:  "No"  "It's because the terroist are coming into dis place froms all over Arabia!" "As long as they's come here to kill us
                 then weze doin our job!"


Willy: "Yea"  "We is here to keep terrorist from going to the U.S.A!"


Joe:  "Yea!"  "Youse got it!"


Willy: "Hey Joe," "You still got that bottle?"

Hugh,

Thanks for your post.  Below is my response

YOU WROTE:   I don't know you Chuck but I like your manner of discussion. I don't think I totally agree with you but we agree on most points. You see my real discussion is with David and I am not focusing at all on GW as a Christian but merely as a President. How can Christians be involved in the world at that level of influence then. If I understand you Chuck we should not run in politics because it causes compromise in the values of Christians. If you understood me I am saying Presidents like GW are to carry out the role of President in integrity to the people and they are not electing a Christian President but a good leader in their minds. They don't want his beliefs to lead policy but what his beliefs have done to his character is what made him attractive to them.

MY RESPONSE:  Hugh, I guess it all goes back to my contention that the United States was founded upon a false premise and consequently is trying to operating outside of the sphere of Christ’s purpose for the church and God’s purpose and plan for Israel.

YOU WROTE:  I believe that if the US continues to honour the spirit of their commitment to Iraq they will succeed in stabilizing the region. As to whether they will accomplish the whole goal that may never happen because the cultural background of the region is thousands of years old was secular leaders. They seem to have this worship of spiritual leaders and that is hard to break. These leaders of course are just as if not more corrupt than the many corrupt western leaders but they have a power over their people to lead them to dangerous cliff maybe even a world war for their view of the faith.

MY RESPONSE:  Although I wish it were true, I guess I would have to disagree that the U.S. will ever be able to stabilize the Middle East.  The true Muslim cannot separate his religion from his politics and their religion will never be compatible with a democratic form of government.  A couple of good books on the subject of Islam are “The Blood of the Moon” by George Grant and “The Crisis of Islam” by Bernard Lewis.  You might find them in the public library.  These authors understand the mentality of the Muslim and the problem of trying to establish a democratic government in their country.  Their hatred of the West, and particularly the United States,  has it’s roots in their belief that Islam is the only true religion and that all “infidels” (unbelievers) are  to be either converted (either willingly or forcibly) or killed.  There is zero tolerance for anything in between.  World domination is their ultimate goal. For the Muslim, whatever means justifies the result.  The Koran  and Hadith bear this out in many of its Suras.   


YOU WROTE:  I know the real answer is Jesus Christ but do you think they would listen to us if we start to talk about Him in Iraq. I mean the people in North America don't listen to us when we talk about Jesus so how much more will they not listen and they will be angry and may go over the deep end with a violent backlash that will make the WTC look like a picnic.

MY RESPONSE:  It is not hard to understand their animosity towards Christianity when they look upon the United States as a Christian nation and witness the wanton decadence that is not only prevalent here, but is so profusely exported around the world.  Then also, Satan has done a masterful job of  deceiving many Christians into abandoning the gospel message and focusing on such  non-essential issues as Ten Commandment monuments, school prayer,  Terry Schiavo, same-sex marriage, etc.  Don’t misunderstand, Hugh, I think Christians should voice their opinions about these issues,  but not in the context of judging unbelievers.  Those, God will judge (1 Cor 5:12).  For example - I most certainly think same-sex marriage is an abomination, but I am not going to change the behavior of homosexuals by making laws.  There has to be a transformation in the lives of these people before we will see a change.  Only a commitment to Christ can bring about a meaningful change.  We should concentrate not on judging unbelievers,  but on making sure that there is no “leaven” in our own churches that detracts or even nullifies the testimony of Christ.

YOU WROTE:  To attempt to restabilize the area and to bring the leaders in touch with their responsiblility as leaders to the other world leaders is necessary.

MY RESPONSE:  History shows us that there has never been a single solitary treaty between nations that has not been broken, nor any form of government that men won’t corrupt.  The U. N. was supposed to help bring about world order, but has failed miserably.  Only when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord shall we see peace and accord on this earth..

YOU WROTE:  Chuck you are addressing a real issue but no one in the secular world will hear it and we might as well resign ourselves to a blood bath over there if they won't listen. The damage of Osama has already begun. When billions of people who are following a relgious leader rise you better know it doesn't matter any cost even a trillion dollars in Iraq is worth it to stop this from happening.

MY RESPONSE:  Even 100 trillion dollars cannot change the hearts of those who deny the deity of our Lord and Savior and worship false gods.   'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts” (Zechariah 4:6).  It is going to happen only by the Holy Spirit witnessing to the spirit of men through the gospel.  How they respond is not our responsibility.   If we are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, our reward in heaven will be great (Matt 5:11-12)  Never lose sight of the fact that God has established kings and rulers and nations and has brought down kings and rulers and nations.  Men like Saddam, and Osama Bin Laden, and yes, George Bush,  are pawns in His hand.  And remember that He has always used evil rulers and nations to chastise His own people and bring them back to Himself, before destroying those rulers and nations.  Our concern must be that we are living our lives in obedience to Him and not lose heart.  He said,  "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"  (Luke 18:8).  We must not get discouraged by circumstances but keep our eyes fixed upon Him

YOU WROTE:  We are not that far apart in our personal views I just don't see how to practically incorporate them. We really only have one other option which is really our best that is Prayer.

MY RESPONSE:  Yes, let’s encourage one another in our faith and trust in Him and not lose heart.  Let us  continue to hold up each other (and all believers) in prayer. 

God bless,    Chuck

P.S.  If you want to send me your e-mail address to chuckmiller888@yahoo.com, I will send you a copy of my dissertation on the  subject of the founding of the United States which covers some of these issues in greater depth..

Will the real liars please stand up?

David Limbaugh

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20050701.shtml

July 1, 2005


Democrat leaders, preparing their rebuttal to the president's speech even before he delivered it, said he should concede he made mistakes as a means to reclaiming credibility on Iraq -- as if they actually want him to have greater credibility.

In the same breath they say he lied to get us into war -- an offense so grave that some of them are advocating he be impeached over it. While national Democrat politicians have long been confused over the distinction between intentional wrongs and mistakes -- thanks to Bill Clinton successfully depicting his pre-meditated transgressions as mistakes -- isn't it clear that if President Bush lied to get us into the war, he didn't merely make a mistake?

But let's explore this beyond semantics. As everyone should know by now, President Bush based his decision to attack on intelligence information provided to him and which he didn't pressure the intelligence agencies to exaggerate. The intelligence agencies of most other nations, including those who nevertheless refused to join us against Iraq, concurred that Saddam was amassing WMD stockpiles.

This assessment was bolstered by Saddam's intractable behavior in persistently defying U.N. weapons inspectors as if he had something to hide and repeatedly violating U.N. resolutions. He had the burden of proving he had disposed of the WMD he demonstrably had and used on his own people, but instead submitted a bogus 12,000-page document, virtually inviting us to attack.

President Bush believed -- and the evidence confirms -- that Saddam's Iraq was a safe haven for international terrorists not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban. Credible reports have emerged that some of his henchmen were present at 9-11 planning meetings.

But Democrats contend that our failure to find Saddam's WMD stockpiles after we deposed him proves that President Bush lied about their existence in the first place. President Bush's reliance on the best available intelligence, though it may have turned out to be wrong, doesn't make him a liar or prove that he made a mistake in attacking. He would have made a mistake had he failed to act on the information he had, especially considering Saddam's self-incriminating behavior.

As I've written before, Democrats are the ones who are lying when they say they weren't relying on the very same intelligence in supporting the Iraq war resolution. And they are lying when they falsely accuse President Bush of lying about the intelligence.

Among the worst of them is Sen. Kerry, who still pathetically clings to the fantasy that he can be president someday. In his latest lurch for relevance -- on "Larry King Live" -- he again accused President Bush of deceiving the American people, this time by constantly switching his rationale for attacking Iraq: from WMD, to spreading democracy, to suppressing a "hotbed of terrorism."

But it's Kerry who's doing the misleading. From the very beginning, President Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq was that under Saddam, she was our enemy in the global war on terror and a threat -- indirect and direct -- to our national security. The three reasons Kerry cites are not incompatible, but of a piece. President Bush believed Saddam was amassing WMD and acting in concert with Islamic terrorists. And, he's always had a vision that the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East would be a natural antidote to the proliferation of terrorism. That's not why we attacked Iraq, because we are not in the business of gratuitous nation building, but it's a potentially glorious byproduct that we shouldn't underestimate and is certainly consistent with our war aims.

No matter how incapable Kerry's Democrats are of comprehending this, 9-11 confirmed that Islamic radicals throughout the world are at war with the United States. The terrorist threat is not localized to Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Democrats' quixotic refrain that we concentrate our resources only on capturing Saddam reveals how radically they misapprehend the global scope of this war.

Saddam was begging to be removed, and President Bush neither lied nor made a mistake in removing him. But he would be making a catastrophic mistake if he acceded to the Democrats' suicidal demand that we telegraph a withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq or take other action to undermine our cause -- and the cause of the Iraqi people -- there.

While I'm sure President Bush appreciates all their unsolicited advice and carping, Democrats might be well advised to clean up their own house for a change. Instead of gloating over the president's inconsistent poll numbers, they might awaken to the sobering fact that they are the ones who have been losing elections and need help in the credibility department, especially concerning national security.

But until they demonstrate some comprehension of the global reach and gravity of this war, quit exploiting every morsel of negative news flowing from Iraq for political purposes and start supporting our cause, it's hard to envision a scenario where Americans will entrust them with safeguarding our national security.


David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com

Chuck

Thanks for a very insigtful response. It encourages me as a beliiever to have the Lord to trust. I must admit though I will be very sad to see  events get much worse. If you are right the whole mess will land on our doorstep sooner or later whether we go to Iraq or not. The only answer is to be walking with the Lord and making sure others know the Gospel message in time to turn before they are overwhelmed. Not a pretty picture but we were warned that the end would come and who knows maybe this is the time when the books of Revelation and Daniel are being played out before our eyes. True no matter what we do if God does not want something to happen the plan will fail. All the wealth of the western world or the whole world cannot stop God's plan.

Hugh

Thanks for your posts Chuck.
If there is one way that I would sum up the thinking of  many of our fellow American believers regarding the future oif the nation, it would be with two words: misbegotten hope...
There is only One worthy of our confidence.
I appreciate the way you have been making that critical point.
Verne

Willy: "Hey Joe," "Hows come the Army can't get no recruits?"  "Didn't you see all the Republican college students before the election?"  "Bush, Bush, Bush!"   "What happened?"  "I guess they think it's not really worth it!"  "They think WE should be here but they don't think THEY should be here!"  "Their blood too good to spill but ours is just fine!" "De talks but de don'ts walk!"

Joe: "Willy!"  You has been listenin to that Michsel Moore!"  "You hate America!"  "You lousy lefty commie!"


http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/09/army.recruiting.ap/

Actually the Army made its goal!  (That's because they dropped the goal down by 25%) :P 


                  It's a slam dunk!  Rumsfeld 2003!

http://www.dailyKos.com/story/2005/6/30/72514/6238

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062405H.shtml

  What Tom keeps hoping will go unnoticed is the fact that I started this thread questioning the reasons why our president invaded Iraq. The presidents initial reasoning, WMD'S!  I pointed out that there was no evidence that Saddam had or was about to use WMD's against us or anyone else in the world for that matter! I pointed out that there was no link between Saddam and Osama!   I pointed out that innocent people would die! I pointed out that this didn't seem to jive with Christ teachings.  I pointed out that Israel having the most sophisticated operation going against guerilla warfare was unable to stop it!  I pointed out that Russia in all her glory was unable to get a hold of Afghanistan. I pointed out that the cost of the war!  I pointed out "oil" as the primary motive! (Which Tom agrees with now!)  I pointed out that Mr. Bush was using religion to dupe Americans into believing this was God's will!  Now it has been over two years! We now know that Mr. Bush lied!  We know what was asserted all along. (It didn't take a genius to know this!  Mr. Moore and hundreds of others clearly showed the workings all along) We know by their own admission, "There are no WMD'S"  "There is no link between 9/11 and Saddam" We know now that we aren't winning but only increasing the problem of the "War on Terror!"  We can see that we have spent over $200,000,000,000 on something we cannot win!  We have watched 1700 of our own military die!  also 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead and 15000 U.S. wounded!  And yet we continue to read Tom's condescending remarks about me!  "Continue to pray for Dave"   Tom????   Do I claim things that aren't substantiated???? Tom it is the blind and ignorant who need prayer. Dude you bought the President's lies!!! You defended him all the way!  Dude you have a masters degree in Bible!!!  Yet you wont admit it when you are wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!!!  Dude what's that you said about a fool????  You are worse than George Geftakys! You have all the evidence right here and you say things like, "This is a liberal dream!"  Dude will you say that when Rove stands on trial for leaking the name of the CIA agent??? When Bush is impeached???  It is not a dream!  The nightmare was living through all the news this past three years!
Dude don't you see what is happening?  Don't you see that the Christian Church is loosing credability because of people like you???

Whether there are justifiable reasons or not for our presence in Iraq will probably always be debated.
No intelligent nor reasonably well-informed individual can take an objective look at the available evidence and come to any other condlusion than that the reasons originally given for our action are quite suspect to say the least. Whether Bush knew about it or not, the intelligence was clearly massaged for political effect.
Another sad consequence oif what happened was the tarnishing of the credibility, and diminution of stature of a man like Colin Powell. The entire affair speaks volumes about the level of contempt some poltical apparatchiks have for the general public. The current spin by some reminds me of the indignant and pseudo-intellectual tripe spouted by a lot of folk, inccluding windbag Limbaugh, to pooh- pooh the early concerns expressed  by some alert folk about the global warming trend. The early scientific evidence in the literature was rock-solid that this was happening.
I am  occasonally amused to still hear some folk talk about it being proganda from the liberal left. More of us need to read the scientific and professional literatrue to help cure us of our stifling malaise and stultifying ignorance.
Verne

p.s the fact that a bull-dog like Patrick Fitzgerald is having such a hard time cracking the case involving the leak of that CIA operative's name (clearly done in retaliation) tells you something important...I am watching this with great interest...

.

Verne,
      You bring a very valid point about the manipulation of truth by the executive branch,  whether by Republican or Democrat. No greater danger of this than in a time of war. The lessons of Watergate were supposed to be that no president is above the law, as is the supposed legacy of Vietnam. The accusation of chickenhawks like Karl Rove that liberals are not patriotic because they are questioning this executive powers, such as supension of habeas corpus is symptomatic of this pathology. Like many Vietnam vets, I subscribe to the conviction, I love my country, I don't trust my government. It seems the higher up the echelon, the more likely the mantra is that power means never having to say: I was wrong. This observation is not meant to minimize the seriousness of 9/11, but only to underscore that loss of liberty is an enemy every bit as dangerous as al Qaeda.
 Wayne

Willy:  "It says here that in November 2003 there were and estimated 5000 insurgents in Iraq!"

Joe: "Yea, but today they says the insurgents are estimated at 16000!"


Willy:  "Why then doesn't the President send us some help?"


Joe"  "Perhaps he really doesn't know what he is doing?"


But remember folks it was the librals who lost the war!!!  These stats come from our own government! DOD Dept. Of Defence!

43% say impeachment now!!!!


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

I pray for my president Wayne, that he would walk in integrity before his God. I am afraid you are one of the few believers I know (along with Chuck) who views the issue as one primarily of principle, and not simple-minded party politics. I do not stand in the man's shoes and cannot appreciate all that he contends with. I do know that no amount of political acumen and success is worth the imprimatur of the Almighty. The witness of Daniel proves that it is possible to serve in uncomprormised righteousness. Christians who take the position that the man and those around him can do no wrong have become useless to him...
Verne

Just FYI:


From:
Click here: DallasNews.com | News for Dallas, Texas | Local News Columnist Steve Blow  (http://DallasNews.com | News for Dallas, Texas | Local News Columnist Steve Blow)

Steve Blow:
Another take on Iraq war
08:00 PM CDT on Thursday, July 7, 2005



In a letter to the editor last week, a Duncanville woman asked: "Would anyone in the media be willing to take a positive look at the war in Iraq?"

Beth Weaver went on to say that when her two sons returned from military duty there, they were "stunned and disgusted" by the lack of good news being reported from Iraq.

First, my hat is off to any parent with not one, but two sons in Iraq. How terrifying that must be.

And second, sure, this member of the media would love to hear some good news from Iraq. After Thursday's horrors in London, maybe you're hankering for something hopeful, too.

So a few days after her letter appeared, I was sitting in Ms. Weaver's homey den, listening with fascination and apprehension to the stories of her 22-year-old twins, Nick and Dan Turner.

Both are U.S. Marines on reserve status now. But from September through April, they were on highly active duty – fighting street-by-street, house-by-house to roust insurgents from the enemy stronghold of Fallujah.

That macho thing prevented them from making it sound too dramatic or heroic. But Nick laughingly told of his first patrol in Iraq – a nighttime excursion that included a firefight. "Those tracers were flying through the air, and it's like, 'Holy crap! This isn't on TV anymore. This is real.' "

It actually took some lobbying by the family for Dan and Nick to serve together in Iraq. Initially, only Dan was activated for service there, and the Marines balked at putting both brothers in harm's way. But Ms. Weaver said: "I'd rather they be together. They can take care of each other."

So though they didn't fight side by side, they saw each other often. And both say they witnessed an amazing transformation.

"When we got there, the Iraqis were all hostile to us. Adults and children would give us the middle finger as we passed by," Dan said.

Then came the battle of Fallujah, in which law-abiding citizens fled and insurgents put up a desperate fight. The city was swept clean – and nearly demolished in the process. Even so, when residents returned, everything began to change, the brothers said.

"They were giving us thumbs up," Nick said. "They would holler out 'Good Bush' and 'Good Mister' – the only English they know."

"They really started to understand we were there to help them," Dan said.

When her sons got home, Ms. Weaver realized there was a perception gap with almost her first question. "I said, 'Do you feel like you made a difference?' "

Shocked, Dan replied, "Heck, yeah! Don't you know?"

Ms. Weaver had to admit that she didn't. The daily reports of death and mayhem left her wondering whether we even belonged in Iraq.

"I was very concerned that it was a big mistake," she said. "Watching TV, reading the newspaper, it was like: 'Oh, my God. They're in hell!' "

But the twins were full of upbeat stories of schools opening, of growing trust, of Iraqi men kissing their hands in appreciation, of befriending children with smiles and chocolates.

"We are winning their hearts and minds," Dan said. "You don't see that here."

The brothers also said they saw tremendous progress in the Iraqi troops. Initially, a few Iraqis joined them on patrols merely as a gesture. Now patrols often include half GIs and half Iraqis. "They're just getting better and better," Nick said.

In brief defense of my profession, there's no denying that securing Iraq has been a lot tougher than predicted. It's not like we're making the bad stuff up.

And many folks don't seem to understand that journalism focuses on problems not out of perversity, but rather to hasten solutions. It's one of our most important functions.

Still, our coverage should not become part of the problem. And the brothers believe that it has.

"It's not all death and destruction. We're winning the people over," Dan said. "But it's not like flipping a light switch. It will take time and patience and support from home. If you reported more of the good stuff, there would be more support."

I think they have a point.

E-mail [color=Blue]sblow@dallasnews.com[/color]  

Inasmuch as all other posters seem to have retired from the field of this thread, I'll just toss in this e-mail I received today:

---

THE WAY IT SHOULD BE HANDLED:


    A person wrote a letter to the White House complaining about the treatment
of a captive taken during the Afghanistan war.  Below is a copy of the response.



  Dear Concerned Citizen:

    Thank you for your recent letter criticizing our treatment of the
Taliban  and Al Qaeda detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    The administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was
heard loud and clear here in Washington.  You'll be pleased to learn that,
thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, we are creating the Terrorist
Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for
Killers" program, or LARK for short.  In accordance with the guidelines of
this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal
care.

    Your detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation to your
residence next Monday.  Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud is to be cared for
pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of
admonishment.  We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your
standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly
recommended in your letter.

    Although Ahmed is psychopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your
sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him
overcome this character flaw.  Perhaps you are correct in describing these
problems as mere cultural differences.

    Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat
and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail
clippers.  He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices
from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked
up, unless you feel that this might offend him.

    Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters since he
views females as a subhuman form of property.  This is a particularly sensitive
subject for him.  He has been known to show violent tendencies around women
who fail to comply with the dress code that he considers appropriate, but
I'm sure that over time they will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by
the bhurka.  Just remind them that it is all part of respecting his culture
and his religious beliefs.

    Thanks again for your letter.  We truly appreciate it when folks like
you inform us of the proper way to do our job.  Take good care of Ahmed and good
luck!

  Cordially,
  Don Rumsfeld

---

al ;)

See Jane's Magical Mystery Tour
Kathleen Parker
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/printkp20050727.shtml

July 27, 2005


Like millions of Americans, I heaved a sigh of relief upon reading that Jane Fonda finally is going to speak out against the war in Iraq. Where has she been?

On book tour promoting her autobiography-in-progress, "My Life So Far." We might have guessed a real-time sequel was in the offing.

Fonda says that, having met some veterans and their families while on tour, she's decided to break her silence. "I've decided I'm coming out," she told an audience in Santa Fe, N.M. "I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam. I carry a lot of baggage from that."

That baggage includes the now infamous photo of Fonda in 1972 sitting atop a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while on a tour of that country. Many Vietnam vets do not forgive Fonda for what they view as treason and for making their lives harder, especially prisoners of war who were tortured in her name. To her limited credit, Fonda has apologized.

Still, her newest foray into antiwar territory feels like a cartoonish parody of her former self. Jane Fonda playing Jane Fonda. In her newest version of Me, Myself and I, Fonda will segue from book tour to antiwar tour via a cross-country trip on a bus that runs on vegetable oil. Slick. But is it canola?

Fonda is mum on details but promises "it's going to be pretty exciting." One can hardly wait. Suddenly, I find myself dreaming of a time when the Rolling Stones do not do one more tour, and Jane Fonda does not find her groove again.

Ending the war is surely the goal of any sane person, but what precisely would Jane Fonda and others against the war have us do? Withdrawing now isn't an option. Losing the war isn't an option. Handing Iraq to terrorists isn't an option. Even those opposed to invading Iraq concede that much.

So what is the point of an antiwar, vegetable oil bus tour? After this trip, Fonda may need a small island to accommodate the baggage she'll accrue.

Meanwhile, there is serious work to do in Iraq, especially as a new constitution is being crafted, the success of which will hasten our ability to withdraw successfully. If Fonda and other celebrities want to attach their names to something constructive, they might join the Independent Women's Forum (iwf.org) in trying to advance the status of women in Iraq and, ultimately, throughout the Middle East.

IWF members meet regularly with Iraqi women, both in the U.S. and abroad, to teach them the principles of democracy and equal rights. Their critically important work is based on the understanding that democracy and freedom are the antidote to terrorism, and that women's (and other minority) rights are fundamental to the ultimate cure.

At this precarious moment, as terrorists gain momentum from successful hits in Britain, Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere, Iraq's working-draft constitution leaves much to be desired. Of greatest concern is a section that leaves personal matters - marriage, divorce and inheritance - to whatever religious law is practiced by the family's sect.

Women are equal, in other words, as long as their rights don't violate Shariah, or Koranic law. What this could mean for Iraqi women is on vivid display in places where Islamic law rules.

A few days ago, for example, a woman in an Indian village who was raped by her father-in-law was forced to nullify her marriage, marry the rapist, and act as mother to her former husband. This mind-numbing fatwa was issued by South Asia's most powerful theological school, according to The Washington Times.

Before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi men and women were almost equal. Except for those chosen especially for rape by Saddam's sons and their henchmen, women faced only the same tortures as men. Now, they may face diminished status under a constitution that, as proposed, contradicts democratic principles of equality and freedom.

The Iraqi parliament has until Aug. 15 to adopt a draft constitution, which then faces a nationwide referendum by mid-October. If the women lose, we all lose.

Now there's a cause for feminists and Fondas alike. If we want to end the war in Iraq, a sound, woman-friendly constitution is at least part of the answer. To that end, Michelle Bernard, the IWF senior vice president who runs the democratic outreach program to Iraqi women, says she'd be happy to accept Fonda's check.

Jane Fonda's second coming
Cal Thomas
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050728.shtml

July 28, 2005


We've all seen them: aging athletes, beyond their prime, trying to squeeze out one more fight, or one more season, but failing to bring back their glory days.

That seems an appropriate analogy for the return of Jane Fonda to the political stage. Having made her first movie in many years ("Monster-in-Law") that was a box office success, Fonda apparently thinks her new visibility gives her a certain credibility to comment on the Iraq war.

She has announced plans for an anti-war bus tour next March. Why is she waiting so long? The war might be over by then. The bus will run on vegetable oil. How 1960s! Will the riders grow their hair long, smoke pot, dress in tie-dyed T-shirts and sing "Blowin' in the Wind"? Fonda says she will be joined by her daughter and some families of Iraq War veterans. She says veterans came up to her during her book tour, encouraging her to protest the war.

In her memoir, "My Life So Far," and on numerous interview shows, Fonda has repeatedly apologized for going to North Vietnam in 1972 where she sat on an anti-aircraft gun and said things critical of her country that encouraged the enemy to fight on.

The North Vietnamese used her comments as propaganda in an effort to demoralize American troops and diminish the resolve of prisoners of war. Just what does she think will be the result of her forthcoming bus tour if not to encourage the terrorists and insurgents now fighting Americans and Iraqis in Iraq?

With high privilege also goes increased responsibility. If youthful indiscretion is an excuse she has used to explain her anti-war activities more than 30 years ago, what explanation will she have in her now mature years - temporary insanity?

 "I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam," Fonda was quoted as saying. "I carry a lot of baggage from that." She certainly does, which makes it all the more perplexing why she is intent on adding even more baggage. It's peculiar that Fonda only protests what Americans do to resist evil, but she led no protests against Saddam Hussein's murderous regime that practiced evil. Why is that?

Jane Fonda might be described as one who is "always learning, but never able to acknowledge the truth," as the Bible she once read and claimed to believe says about people of shifting convictions and allegiances (see 2 Timothy 3:7). Except that she does not learn, much less arrive at any truth.

When Fonda announced she had been born again by accepting Christ as her savior, I investigated and concluded she was genuinely serious about her new faith. I wrote a column urging people not to judge or condemn her. Sadly, I must now write that by her own words, Jane Fonda has moved away from that initial faith into a universalism in which she says there are many ways to God and Jesus is not the only path. She has denied the essence of Christianity. One cannot truly be called a Christian unless one believes the uniqueness of the life, atoning death and resurrection of Christ.

When Jane Fonda protested the Vietnam War there were just three television networks and few media outlets for those who opposed her actions. We are now in a new media environment. While the major networks may practice their usual celebrity suck-up, cable television and talk radio are not about to give her a free pass. Look for Vietnam veterans still angry at "Hanoi Jane" to turn out along the bus route to protest her protest, then and now. It could get ugly.

Jane Fonda has every right to freedom of speech, but so do those who believe she caused enough harm in the Vietnam War that they will not allow her to escape accountability or undermine America's efforts in this one. America survived its pullout from Vietnam. It cannot survive a similar outcome in this war. That's the big difference that Jane Fonda doesn't understand.

Robert Lifton, who first identified 8 criteria for thought reform, has an interesting article on the war on terror. It begins:

"The apocalyptic imagination has spawned a new kind of violence at the beginning of the twenty-first century. We can, in fact, speak of a worldwide epidemic of violence aimed at massive destruction in the service of various visions of purification and renewal. In particular, we are experiencing what could be called an apocalyptic face-off between Islamist forces, overtly visionary in their willingness to kill and die for their religion, and American forces claiming to be restrained and reasonable but no less visionary in their projection of a cleansing warmaking and military power. Both sides are energized by versions of intense idealism; both see themselves as embarked on a mission of combating evil in order to redeem and renew the world; and both are ready to release untold levels of violence to achieve that purpose."


The complete article can be read on the F.A.C.T.net website at http://www.factnet.org/American_Apocalypse.html (ftp://http://www.factnet.org/American_Apocalypse.html)

This link should work "more better".  The original one was preceeded by "ftp" which causes problems.

http://www.factnet.org/American_Apocalypse.html (http://www.factnet.org/American_Apocalypse.html)

Hi Margaret!

  I was unable to open the link you provided so my response to it is limited to what you wrote re. it.

    Dr. Lifton's attempt to make America's involvement in Iraq equal to Islamic extremists in what he calls "an apocalyptic face-off-----" is deeply flawed; the two groups are as different as night and day.  I suspect that the good Dr. has a political axe to grind (left leaning agenda) that attempts to desiginate all war as "a cleansing warmaking and (use of) military power"

   Would Robert Lifton accuse the US forces involved in WW II of the same "vision" as the Nazi and Japanese zealots?  Were we wrong to try and defeat these evil systems and "cleanse" them from the earth in an effort to "redeem and renew the world?"

   I am proud of our American soldiers and am supportive of their mission and see it as a classic battle against good and evil!

  Above my desk on a shelf where I am typing from is a framed tribute to an American Hero who gave his life, as many Americans have in the past, to fight evil and protect "the vision" that God intends man to live in the dignity of freedom.

                                       AMERICAN HERO

                                     Lance Corporal Abraham Simpson
                                              U.S Marine Corps
                                                    Age 19
                                                 Hometown
                                                  Chino, CA
                                              Died Nov. 9, 2004

        Robert Lifton attempts to assainate the character of these soldiers involved in a very worthy effort by making their mission equal to the evil system that is radical Islam in an effort to push his political views and this is disgusting!
                                                                God bless,  Mark C.  

Mark,

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Lifton, as far as I know, is a good psychologist.  At least in the area of Mind Control.   

I know he spoke at the Claremont Colleges recently.

The belief in Freedom is based on the Christian idea of the image of God in each created individual and the fact that all men can have equal access  to God through Jesus Christ.

The Muslim denial of freedom to all men is based on their idea of "submission" to Allah.  It is pure legalism, through and through.  Obey all sorts of outward religious observances and you are OK.

Disobey and you must be punished under Qu'ranic and Sharia law....which is pretty harsh.

Resist and you must die!  If you are conquered and still refuse to convert, you may be allowed to become a Dhimmi.  These are subject peoples who must pay special taxes and have few rights.

This is a war against Western Civilization, no doubt about it.   Most Muslims are fairly secularized and stay out of the radical's activities.  But they sympathize and frequently support them financially.  And...their young men are candidates for radicalization.

Our children's and grand-children's future is being threatened.  So...I say they should be suppressed.

Thomas Maddux

The president's fading voice
By Cal Thomas
Thursday, March 22, 2007

President Bush appealed for patience as the Iraq war entered its fifth year. In a televised address from the White House, the president warned of the consequences if America were to "pack up and go home."

The president appeared to be pleading, not leading. Where are the convictions of conscience, the soaring rhetoric, the broad vision and the dire warnings of failure? Did these go out the door with the departure of Michael Gerson, his best speechwriter?

The president can be persuasive in the content of his speeches and eloquent in his delivery. We saw a different man after 9/11 than we saw before, or see now. The loss of eloquence has given his political opponents new opportunities, not only to make his life miserable, but also to encourage the enemy in their perception of a divided nation. His weekly radio addresses are lifeless and delivered in a monotonous cadence, as if he wishes he were someplace else.

Speeches matter: Lincoln at Cooper Union and his Second Inaugural Address; Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in World War II; John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address; Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech; Reagan's tear-producing "Boys of Pointe du Hoc" speech commemorating D-Day at Normandy and the one he delivered after the Challenger disaster and Bush's post-9/11 speech to Congress. If you can't rise to the occasion as president, or when history calls in some other great leadership capacity, when can you?

The president needs to go on the offensive, not just on the war, but also on domestic issues. There was a glimmer of an offense in his challenge to Democrats over a "show trial" regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. But verbal combat is not his gift and he is dealing from a weakened position with a Democratic Congress.

On the war, he should constantly quote what al-Qaida and other extremist organizations state is their objective for us. He should ask war opponents, "Do you think they are lying?" The president should invite Iraqis to America to thank us for our investment - of blood and capital - in their freedom. The president should ask war opponents, "Would you prefer they were still under Saddam Hussein's murderous regime? Senators Obama, Schumer, Durbin, Reid and Speaker Pelosi, tell them that to their faces."

Then the president should ask war opponents, "If we were to pull out before we are certain that the elected Iraqi government can stand on its own, what will happen next? Iraq would surely be overrun by al-Qaida fanatics who would then establish a radical Islamic state like they did in Afghanistan, using that state as a terror base to eliminate Israel and come after Europe and the United States with renewed vigor. When that happens, will you take responsibility for it? I doubt it."

On the earmarks Democrats are loading onto the supplemental spending bill for Iraq, the president should list them and their authors by name and shame them before the American people. He won't because he's too nice, which is a wonderful personal trait but it cannot make one a great president. Better to be a nasty success than a genial failure. Bush gets no points from his Democratic opponents for being "Mr. Congeniality."

If the president cares not only about a legacy, but in seeing his Iraq policy successfully completed, he'd better start defending it and proclaiming the truth as he sees it before his opponents pound him to political death. The Left has no strategy for victory, only defeat. They won't say what would happen without a strong America opposing Islamofascism. Their strategy is retreat and defeat.

Why can't Mr. Bush say these things? Is he afraid liberals won't like him? They already don't like him. He shouldn't care if they like him less. The president is not the head of an etiquette club. He is a political leader and is also supposed to be a moral and military leader. The United States once was feared. Now, third-rate terrorists and puny dictators think they can do anything to us with few, if any, consequences. If conciliation and kindness won't do the job, fear might.

This business about U.S. attorneys is a distraction. Important issues need to be addressed. Where is the president's voice? Where is his confidence? Where is his leadership?

It's way past time to "kick butt."

---

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist and co-author of Blinded by Might.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

Cal Thomas can dream all he wants.
The fact remains that this president is in deep trouble.
Has anyone noticed that almost without exception, everyone who has served in this administration leaves a person of diminished stature (some with reputations tarnished) as compared to when they came in?
It now appears that Gonzales is about to be aded to this list.
I am curious to see how Bob Gates is going to fare.
Without getting into the merits or lack thereof of the horrible debacle we now find oursleves in in Babylon, thoughtful folk cannot help but get the sense that something is terribly wrong with this crowd.
I note with interest that Paul Wolfowitz and his cronies are busily making plans to take control of the country's oil resources - Surpirse! Surprise!
The hubris and arrogance of those around him is nothing short of stunning, and it has nothing to do with political affiliation.
I get the sense that the worst is yet to come.
I hope Christians who thought the Republican Party being in power was akin to the coming of the Messiah are now spending much time on their knees imploring the mercy of God for this country, that He would somehow deliver us from this horrible mess we are in...

The threat is greater than you know and supression will not utlimately matter.
Why?
Do the math.
They are procreating (as a matter of strategy), at four times the rate of Westerners so it is only a matter of time...

eloquent??  :rofl:
he doesn't get accused of that very often.


i don't think the problem with bush's strategy has been a lack of fear-mongering, but rather the loss of credibility that goes along with an extended campaign of fear-mongering based on lies and distortions.

another problem with the white house's stragedy is its polarizing approach. domestically, they have disparaged anyone who sees flaws in their plans as unpatriotic and a terrorist-lover.  they have surrounded themselves with stalwart neo-conservatives and are unwilling to acknowledge any other perspectives as having credibility. they are well-protected from any unwanted outside perspective.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/heroic_secret_service_agent_takes  ;D

internationally, his policies have effectively divided our friends while uniting our enemies. this is very dangerous. it has paralyzed the world's ability to deal with iran, for instance. there are no good options in iraq, only ones with varying degrees of catastrophic results. this is why we should never have destabilized the country in the first place. most of the rest of the world knew this very well, which is why they did not support an invasion in the first place.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#Questions_about_the_plausibility_of_the_link

saddam's dictatorship was the only thing holding iraq together, keeping al-qaeda from gaining any footholds there. by removing him, disbanding iraq'a army, dismantling iraq's economy, and all of the other foolishly reckless actions we took there, we created the perfect place for these bitterly divided factions to battle it out militarily.

(http://www.milnet.com/mid-east-news/iraqs-neighbors.gif)

so either they can battle it out with us deeply involved, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars (so far...) or they can battle it out without us helping things along. either way, a failed state in the middle-east is a terrible result, and bush's choice to blindly pursue this course of creating one is an unforgiveable and irreparable error.

our army has been stretched so thin by these conflicts that we are no longer able to handle new threats, such as iran. the ability of our military strength to deter emerging threats to our security has been deeply compromised, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars we put into the effort. it will take years to build up our reserves and readiness to former levels - if we pull out now.

the white house has worked hard at selling the idea that we are so morally superior to other nations that any immoral act we commit against them is justified, in a war of choice. this is an extremely dangerous attitude for the most powerful nation on the planet to embrace. a little humility about some of the extremely immoral actions we have committed in our time would be appropriate. the countries that hate us generally have really good reasons for it. don't get me wrong, i love the usa, but we have done some awful things to weaker countries over the years.

with the fall of the soviet union and the end of the cold war, we were in a unique position of being the most powerful nation on earth by a very large margin. no nation had ever been so powerful in the history of the planet. bush sr did a slightly better job than clinton in using this position of power to build international consensus and cooperation. our current president, however, has squandered our international credibility and caused the world to lose faith in our leadership, resorting to a 'might makes right' approach that divides our friends and unites our enemies. as a country, we have been self-indulgent, taking for granted our position of power in the world, and not bothering to educate ourselves about what is actually happening and what our role in it has been. that is what our children and our children's children will pay the price for. if this conflict begins to spread to other countries, such as iran, it will be draining our resources and spilling american blood for decades.

i don't know what the answer is. but it is a certainty that the man who got us into a mess like this is not the kind of man who could ever get us out of it.


they should be surpressed for being muslim? wow  :o
holy wars breed the very radicalism you are condemning. not to mention the moral issues around militarily surpressing people because of their religious beliefs.

verne, i completely agree with your observations of what happens to the people who work for this administration. they end up being the fall guys. it says a lot about how these people operate.

brian

Brian,

First of all, let me deal with this:



I was referring to radical Muslim Jihadists and those who support them.  I certainly was not calling for a holy war against all Muslims.  If I gave that impression I did not express myself clearly.  Nevertheless, I am quite in favor of defending both my life and my freedom, (and yours), against those who would attempt to deprive us of either.  I have been called many names in my 65 years...but Polyanna is not one of them.

You said:

It would be useful if you were specific about the "lies". Most of the folks I have heard making this accusation are talking about the apparently erroneous belief in the presence of WMD's in Iraq before the war. 

It is undeniable that they did not find many WMD's when they went in. I remember reading about one large cache of gas laden artillery shells that they found, but not much else.  However, don't forget that the secret services of Russia, England, France, Germany, Israel, and Jordan all believed they were there.  Also, don't forget that the Senate Intelligence Committee had exactly the same information as GWB before they voted to go to war.


I do not believe that this is true.  Right now the Left is in charge in most European countries, and they hate and fear the USA.  They always have.  They don't hate us because of Iraq.  They hate Christianity, Capitalism, and free market economic policies. They know that large numbers of Americans believe in all or most of these things.  THAT is what they hate.

Recall, for example, that when Spain had a conservative government they supported the war. (Bush's lies sure did fool a lot of folks eh?)  After the Al Quaida attack on the commuter trains, they voted in a leftist government which promptly left the war.

During the Cold War, the leftists blamed Russian aggression on the USA, and constantly called for unilateral disarmament by all NATO countries.  Ronald Reagan's upgrades to our forces were vehemently condemned.  (He was stupid y'know)


Actually, the paralysis of European countries is caused by the pathetic condition of their military preparedness.  The large armies and fleets of the Cold War era are gone...gotta spend more on government giveaways y'know.
England's current naval program is designed to reduce their fleet to 19 major units....19!


True enough.  It is evident that we had a lot to learn about the influence of radical Islam in the area.  We also did not have a good picture of what would happen if he were removed.  Here, in my view, is the major failing of GWB and his crew.  There simply was no plan to administer the country.  I do, however, agree with the decision to disband the army.  It was nearly completely composed of Sunni's who had oppressed and murdered the Shiite's and Kurds for 30 years.  No popularly elected government had a chance of succeeding as long as that much power was concentrated in a hostile army.

Brian, you seem to have fallen into the habit of making sweeping moral condemnations of people you don't like.  The problem with this is you have to actually know what is moral and what is not.  You seem to feel that you do. 

Would you mind explaining just how that works?

Tom

This may be a bit off topic but can anyone explain to me what it is about so many associates of this current administration that issues in the remarkable stench of coruption, deception, malfeasance and things of the sort??!!
Now we have the case of Mr. Wolfowitz having the unspeakable arrogance and even greater doltishness to engage in the most egregious act of nepotism in using his position as president of the world bank to advance the career of his lover.
When the rest of the world begins to look at this country's supposed best and brightest with such contempt and an air of moral and ethical superiority you know we are in trouble.
Mr Wolfowitz, excercise a little dignity and resign from your post so sparing us the sickening prospect of your explaining to us how you could have been so incredibly stupid and corrupt...

Verne,

I do not follow the political news very much.  What are you talking about?

Tom Maddux

Mr Paul Wolfowitz is considered by many to be  the chief architect (along with Cheney) of the American policy with regard to our invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussien. He ran the show before Paul Bremmer from Kissinger associates was sent over there to try and straighten out the unbelieveable mess that has ensued. He was most recently at the fore-front of the announcement (as one of the contract's architects) of the news that the Iraqi governement had been
presented with a formula (written in English no less) for how the international community under the gracious auspices of the World Bank would "help" Iraq bring its oil to the thirsty world market.
Anyway, apparently not to long after his installment as president of the World Bank, he strong armed the movement, over the objections  of many of his wiser colleagues. of his girlfirend to a post in the State Department at a huge increase in salary (190,000.00) yet kept her on the World Bank payroll!!
Considering that one of the most challenging tasks the World Bank has is to try and keep corrupt officials and governments who receive development monies from stuffing it into their pockets and the pockets of their friends and relatives, Wolfowitz with this one stroke has demonstrated either unbelieveable stupidity or unbelieveable hubris.
He  has apologised for his "mistake" but the fact of the matter is there is no way he can remain effectively in that post after what he did.
No wonder so many developing nations resent us...they believe, and it is often true, we want everyone else to play by the rules...

from tom below:

i apologize for leaping to that conclusion. i can see that it was unwarranted. i have heard others articulate 'holy war against muslims' kinds of beliefs and i let that influence my interpretation of your comments.


we got the intel from germany, who got it from a mentally-ill underling who had fallen out of favor with saddam and was allowed to move to germany with his family and live there for free in return for his intel. he was a proven liar, and was highly motivated to pretend to have information important enough to justify germany giving him and his family safe refuge and a stipend. that’s why none of these other countries wanted to join in our invasion of iraq - they knew exactly how shaky the intel was. plus we sent out undercover investigators to confirm the intel and they came back saying it didn't pan out. they were hushed up.


that’s not a sweeping condemnation of me is it? ;)

from verne:

additionally, he had set himself up as a champion of integrity, leading the noble charge against corruption in the World Bank. so much for that. also, you know what his girlfriend got a job doing? writing up recommendations for how the new government in iraq should be structured! i assume she strongly endorsed cronyism. :D

one of the biggest mistakes this administration made in iraq, and elsewhere, was in valuing blind loyalty over competence. in the interviews of who would be going over to re-build iraq with $20 billion, people were asked who they voted for in 2000. many talented, experienced economists, engineers, ambassadors, etc were passed over because they were pro-life, or not against gay marriage, etc. the people in key positions typically had very little to no experience, but were very loyal, so they would unhesitatingly implement catastrophic decisions. for instance, the 20-something fellow tasked with re-building the iraqi stock market had only had one job in his life - at a mortgage firm, dealing with real estate. the guy tasked with restructuring the iraqi economy had been an economics college professor his entire life - no practical experience at all, but big on his pet theories. he made the decision to get rid of all debt and all savings of the iraqi state-run companies, just like that. this effectively destroyed the strong viable companies (which had the most savings) and greatly boosted the most bloated, useless companies (which had the biggest debts). the strong companies promptly collapsed, while the weak ones puttered on with infusions of our cash - because their inefficiency employed larger numbers of people. somehow bremmer managed to spend $20 billion without restoring reliable electricity, clean water, basic hospitals, basic educational facilities, etc - not even to the capital city. $12 billion of his spending is unaccounted for - something congress was questioning him about several weeks ago. there are loads of examples of these kinds of decisions. the resulting (totally reasonable!) unhappiness in the general population heightened tensions, and since bremmer had disbanded the army and police force there was no security. mix age-old religious conflicts and some power-hungry clerics into the equation and you have civil unrest. bush responds by stubbornly plunging headlong down this same path, learning nothing, and now we have civil war. we can't stop a civil war by "surging" our troops up a little. it requires carefully crafted compromise, something this administration does not believe in and is not capable of.

an excellent book about what has gone on in Iraq, if anyone is interested:
Imperial Life in the Emerald City http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Inside/dp/1400044871/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8216520-7164807?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177095122&sr=8-1

it was written by a guy who lived in the green zone in baghdad, watching the situation go from mediocre to horrible nightmare through a series of incompetent decisions, mixed with corruption. he interviewed many of the key players throughout the process of getting iraq's new government in place and attempting to re-engineer iraqi society in bush's image. we have completely ruined that country. the shootings at virginia tech are nothing compared to the violence and chaos they experience every day that is a direct result of the instability WE brought upon them. attacking iraq had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with fighting terrorism, that is a flat-out lie by the bush administration. that’s not even a debatable point any more, its a historical fact. saddam was the best check we had AGAINST al-qaeda getting a foothold in iraq. now that’s gone and they are all over the place.

bush's policies have, however, given terrorism its biggest boost in decades by simultaneously increasing polarizing religious tension in the world, while building up terrorism into a far more menacing threat than it actually is. terrorists are a motley collection of  disaffected minorities that have to rely on the shock value of the crimes they commit to inspire fear because they are utterly incapable of carrying out an actual war (and not that great at carrying out their crimes). all terrorists are looking for is a platform of fear from which to proclaim their message and bush, as their best pr rep, has built them the biggest platform he could muster. he did this because it was in his political interest to do so - it was the only way to advance his personal agenda. he planned to invade iraq well before 9/11, and the fear 9/11 inspired combined with a few well-chosen lies gave him the support he needed. because so much of our military force has been sucked into the foolhardy conflict in iraq, afghanistan is rapidly falling back into the hands of the Taliban.

a recent example of the way bush lies: bush claimed that the democrats were not considering the best interests of the american troops because they tied a troop withdrawal plan into his military spending bill. he made the claim that the military only had enough money to last until april without this funding bill, and now he would have to veto it which would delay funding past this critical date. when the Congressional Research Service confirmed that the military had plenty of funds to last until june, it was dismissed as simply being wrong. now the pentagon itself has come forward and confirmed that they have plenty of funds to last until june.
the story blogged: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/19/bush-iraq-spending/
bush was lying, as usual, to make it look like the democrats were putting the troops at risk. the democrats have actually been working really hard to help scale back the exploitation of our troops by the bush administration.

there are lots of examples. are you familiar with the plame investigation? its been in the news for over a year now, culminating in this conviction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Libby
so its still unresolved, since libby refused to admit that vp cheny told him to out valerie plame as a secret service agent in order to shut up her husband who had provided solid intelligence that there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq BEFORE the president started announcing to the american public that there was. since libby protected cheny, he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and will serve time, and cheny is off the hook. its typical of how this administration works.

this is why its such a horrible idea to vote for someone just because they use God-speak and go to church on sunday. they do that cause polls show that it helps them get votes. thats it.

wow, i really didn't expect to write this much.

brian

Good Job Brian, I'm glad to read that someone is following the political news!

I agree that Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Tenent, Libby maybe "fall guys" but they aren't too far away from Cunningham, Abramoff, Ney, and Delay.

Folks,

Here is a perspective from someone who has "been there".

................................


Lt Col Says It All

(Shared by Chief Ed Tatyrek)

"I'm Tired"

Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq to finish my tour.

I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam.  Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I'm tired:

I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.

I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they support the Troops' by wanting them to 'Cut and Run' before victory is achieved.

I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having  on the battlefield .

I'm tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy over night.

I'm tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament.

I'm tired of the so called 'Elite Left' that prolongs this war by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.

I'm tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. A family who's loved ones gave their life in a just and noble cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly protesters is beyond shameful.

I'm tired that my generation, the Baby Boom -- Vietnam generation, has such a weak backbone that they can't stomach seeing the difficult tasks through to victory.

I'm tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of Captives than they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and Allies.

I'm tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by the Press, but mistreat a prisoner and it is front page news.

Mostly, I'm tired that the people of this great nation  didn't learn from history that there is no substitute for Victory.

Sincerely,
Joe Repya,
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
101st Airborne Division

Tom, I read this around a year ago. I suspect it is written by a very patriotic individual who actually believes what he wrote. However, he totally disregards the facts mentioned in Brian's post. It would be nice if we were really over there doing the right things and all that was needed was  "hard work".  But the sad truth is  we live in a world where "A Rich Man's War is a Poor Man's Fight". The longer we go at it the upper classes in this country are going to benefit, while the middle lower classes pay the price. My advice is beat them at their own game. Invest in their companies and get as much back they stole from you while you can! btw  HBO did a documentary on people who had "been there" I will see if the transcripts are on line and post the address.

http://movies.aol.com/truestories/the-ground-truth

Dave,

1. It may be old, but it reflects the feelings of a lot of folks, including many who have been involved.

2. There is a sense in which all wars are"'rich man's wars".  It is also true, however, that this is a gross oversimplification of reality.  Boeing Aircraft made millions during WW2 selling B-17s and B-29s to the AAF.  Does that mean that they should not have done it?  Did not the "lower classes" benefit from the prevention of the Fascist states of Germany and Japan taking over the world?

Speaking as a member of the lower class, I happen to think that they did. (My folks were poor southern whites with grade-school educations.  I know all about poor.) 

2. The Muslim Jihadis are out to de-stabilize and take over the governments of near eastern states. Imagine how much trouble the world is going to be in if we end up with a nuclear armed Iran dominating Iraq and controlling their oil resources.  When they screw up the world economy your stock prices just might end up in the tank.

BTW, what is your recommendation for preventing this?

Tom Maddux

concerning where this letter came from:

in other words its political propoganda, not genuine sentiments. repya is trying to win the approval of the republican party.

there are several generals who have spoken out against rumsfeld, cheny and bush's decisions - most notably General John Batiste, who was the military commander in Iraq. this is extremely unusual during wartime, and a clear sign of just how poor republican leadership has been. these brave men are putting their life-long careers on the line to speak out.

from http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/24/reid-to-support-iraq-funding-bill/ :


videos of what General Batiste has to say:
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=batiste

batiste in the news, on iraq:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=batiste+bush+iraq

babtiste is gravely concerned with how bush's decisions have crippled the military without slowing the deterioration of the situation he has created in iraq. when the general who served there is telling us this, i think we would be foolish not to listen. its incredible that bush still claims he listens to his generals - he most certainly does not, any more than he listens to congress or the american public. 65% of the iraqi's want us to leave. 64% of americans want us to leave. just how seriously does bush take the precepts of democracy?

brian

Can I then expand that principal to say that any statement made by anyone in politics is not genuine and simply propoganda for their party?  Or should I just apply this to folks I don't happen to agree with?

  Both of the Generals you mentioned, Brian, have made commercials against Bush's policy and one of them is writing a book.  This makes these men just as suspect as the pro-Bush Republican that Tom quoted.

  Any war in hindsight can be critiqued and as a result terrible failures re. it's execuation will always be discovered--- it's just the nature of these kind of conflicts.  The real issue is in stepping back and looking at the options available:   If we leave, it is like Tom says, a nuclear powered Iran will rush in and fill the vaccum; this cannot be allowed!

  History has shown that generals are very poor when it comes to that "stepping back" and getting the big picture that I mentioned above.  This is why in the US the President is Commander in Chief and hopefully he will be the kind of person who will sacrafice political expediency in order to advance more lasting and higher objectives.

  War in Iraq is a very painful and costly involvement for our people, but the cost of just packing up and going home would have ramifications that most certainly would cost us much more in the future.

  If Bush were just pursuing some kind of political agenda he would do what is popular and choose to appease the majority that want us to leave.  Bush's willingness to "stay the course" shows he has a greater commitment to what is best for the long term in face of political loss for him in the short term--- he is a honorable man (even if you disagree with his views).

                                              God bless our fighting men and women now, and those who have given their lives in the past to preserve our freedom let us never forget!              Mark C.

Brian,

You said:

1. I heartily agree that there have been a series of blunders and failed ideas in our attempts to pacify Iraq.  It is a mess and drastic changes are needed. Bush and his advisers have made the same kinds of mistakes in trusting the wrong advice again and again.

It is interesting to compare this situation with other similar situations from the past.  In the Civil War Lincoln faced the same sort of problems.  For the first two years of the war he went through a series of Generals who promised to deliver the goods.  McClellan, Burnsides, Meade and others.  We faced a series of military disasters at places like Bull Run/Manassas, (twice), Antietam, Chancellorsville, Shiloh, (we won that one but at a horrible cost), Fredricksburg, and others. Tens of thousands were killed and wounded as a result of their incompetence.  All of them could just not seem to defeat and destroy  the Army of Virginia in spite of a huge advantage in men and resources.

The problem is this: How do you know which strategy will work until you put it to a real world test?

Finally, U. S. Grant was put in charge.  His philosopy was: a. Bring overwhelming force to bear. b. A willingness to sustain large numbers of casualties over an extended period of time.  Lincoln's political opponents fumed, raged, and heaped vitriol on both Lincoln and Grant from late 1863 to 1865.  But they were proved right in the end.

A more recent example is Harry Truman.  He trusted the "great" general Douglas MacArthur who seriously botched the job of driving the Communists out of Korea.  He left office with very low approval ratings.  He is now considered one of our greatest presidents.  His long-term vision of containment of Communism proved to be successful.  Again, it was when he fired MacArthur and brought in Matthew Ridgeway that we began to win in Korea.  He implemented his "meat grinder" tactics which finally destroyed the huge Chinese army...but only at the cost of a lot of casualties.

Bush has been trying to win on the cheap.  The results of this folly are evident.

You also said:

Actually, he is listening to the precepts of the Constitution.  He told the public what he would do if re-elected, and they sent him back.  Surprise surprise!!   He is trying to do it. 

Our constitution was designed to be a representative democracy, not a direct one.  Ancient Athens demonstrated the weaknesses of a direct democracy.  Public opinion can be minipulated by rhetoric and media images.  The idea that public policy should be run by media poles is an invention of the media itself. 

The power of the media was demonstrated in the Vietnam era.  They focused on the casualties, ignored victories, heaped criticism on Johnson, excused Kennedy for getting us involved beyond the advisor stage.  They portrayed the North Vietnamese as patriots fighting for "freedom".  They called Ho Chi Minh "The George Washington of Vietnam.  They finally got enough support in Congress to cut off funding for the South Vietnamese a year after we had left.  As a result a couple of million people were brutally murdered and many millions more have lived in poverty and without basic human rights for 30 years.


So, Bush is simply trying to do what he told us he would do right up front.  :o BTW, I don't think you will really see any pull-out from Iraq even if Hillary gets elected.  She knows just as well as Bush what the stakes are, and they are VERY high.

Tom Maddux

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/05/30/revealed-why-your-sons-and-daughters-died-in-iraq/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.populistamerica.com%2Frevealed_why_your_sons_and_daughters_died_in_iraq&frame=true


I confess I haven't taken the time to research this article, however, I remember when Bush said, " Iraqis must share the oil revenues..." and I just assumed he meant Sunni, Shiite, Kurd etc..." (Spelling)  Yet apparently he meant they were to agree to share it with oil companies.  If this is true it is just another example of why we need to ask questions etc...

Dave,

You said:


If you had read more carefully, you might have noticed that I said:


Times have changed Dave.  In those days the Liberals, (they really were Liberals in those days), believed that resisting the expansion of the Soviet Empire and defending freedom was a good idea.  Remember Kennedy's speech..."We will pay any price, bear any burden, in defense of liberty..." 

Now the "Liberals" are mainly nothing but Leftist Pollyanas.

You also said:

During the presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson this is was widely believed to be the case.  After Nixon came into office the Lefties that took over the Democratic Party began to ridicule the "Domino Theory" as they called it.  It just wasn't reasonable, they said.

When they voted to abandon the Vietnamese to their fate, the Commies immediately took over Cambodia and Laos.  Indonesia became a Soviet client state for the next 20 years or so.  Only Thailand didn't fall to Communism in that corner of Asia.

So, the Domino Theory wasn't true.  Just mostly true.

But what the heck Dave.  Why should we care if millions of Cambodians were slaughtered for such things as having attended college or wearing glasses?  Why should we care if several million Vietnamese were herded into "re-education" camps and brutalized?  Why should we care if tens of thousands of people drowned, died of thirst, were raped and murdered by Pirates while they tried to escape from their Communist benefactors?  Why should we care if thousands of little girls were taken off those boats and sold into sex slavery? 

For that matter, why should we care if millions of Iraqis become Islamist slaves?

We have more important things to think about....like our personal prosperity and personal peace.

Tom Maddux

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War


   I don't know very much about our involvement in Viet-Nam It seems that "Colonialism" is what started the mess. The French took it over, the vietnamese fought for their independance. You wouldn't hold that against them would you?  Fighting against a foriegn power that has invaded your country? 

  (Correct me if I am wrong) because they chose to be Communist, because Russia funded their government, we perceived this as a threat?  This brought us into another country?  In a sense we told them, "Hey you don't have a right to be communist!"  "Stop that or we will kill you!" (Yes from your perspective we went to give aid, protection and freedom to anyone who oppossed the ideals of communism.)

   While we were fighting the commies in Viet-Nam we were getting our asses kicked!  They had an amazing system of undergound tunnels. Their method of guerilla warfare frustrated the hell out our forces. These guys were fighting against "The Best Army in the World" and they kicked our asses!  Why? Because they believed in what they were fighting for!  They were fighting an enemy who had invaded their country!  It meant everything for them!  It was their country, their livelyhood, their families. What about our soldiers?  What did they have to win? As it is now we recognize their government and participate with them in the world economic market!


    You mentioned the injustices, "murders, killings, rapes,"  Our boys didn't murder, kill, rape? Have you considered the fact that our very involvment distabilized these countries/goverments. (Just like Iraq today!)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

     Tom, I have seen footage of U.S. servicemen rounding up Vietnamese villagers. The 4 foot 11 inch adults pleading for their lives, bowing at the waist with their hands folded in prayer towards their "liberators" as they watch our "Brave Soldiers" torch their every possesion. You want to tell me I am a victim of the "liberal media"? 


    Tom my bad attitude has to do with the fact that our government is being controled by an elite few who refuse to bring justice to crooks like Cheney, Bush, Rove etc.  If I was like you perhaps I wouldn't be such a cinical burnout. I would believe Bush when he says, "We are over their bringing freedom to the Iraqi people." The obvious truth is, It has to with POWER, MONEY, CONTROLE. Didn't you learn this in the Assembly?


  P.S. You seem to find democrats responsible for everything wrong in our history, "Domino Theory  etc..." Yet, when it comes to Republicans you say things like, "mistakes" Its like the Republicans are the leadership in the Assembly and the Democrats are the Catholic Church!  I think you need to take a step back and look at things a little more objectively. I think you need to ask questions, "Could there be another reason why Bush lead us into this war?" "Is it possible that brother George is wrong?"


   

   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

Tom, here is your Domino Theorist Democrat Dwight D. Eisenhower! Oh, I would just like to reafirm your "Polyana" comment. No doubt you heard about that Representative, Democrat (Fox News) Mark Foley. This guy is an admitted child predetor!  He spent his time pursueing relationships with underage boys over the internet. What our country needs is men like representative, Republican? Jim Web!  Yep, the former military man who wears his son's boots, (His son is in Iraq) Is a real man's man!  When George bush walked up to and said, "How's ya boy?"  he responded "That' between me and my boy  ...!"  Yesiree A man's man!  Oh wait a minute I think I got this mixed up?  Oh well, you know what I'm gettin at!  Semper Fi!

Dave,

I will reply to your previous post a little later. 

Regarding this post:

1. Regarding the link you gave, the Domino Theory was named by Eisenhower.  However, the Wikipedia article specifically says that Truman reasoned in the same way when he sent aid to stop the Communists from taking over Greece and Turkey.  Eisenhower gave the idea a name, but it was not new to him as a concept.

2. The best I can do with what you said about Mark Foley is that it seems as if you think "Pollyana" means an effeminate man or a sissy, something like that.

Actually it means a person who cannot deal with the presence of real evil and therefore cannot deal with it realistically.   When I used the term "Lefty Pollyanas" I was pointing out that the left in this current dispute attempt to say that all we need to do is talk to people and the problem will go away.  I suppose they think we will have "peace in our time", just as Neville Chamberlain thought that piece of paper he waved at the cameras would stop Adolph Hitler.  So maybe I should have said "Leftist modern day Neville Chamberlains".

In reality, Muslims began their hatred of Christians and Jews in the 7th century.  They hate us because they think we are all Christians.  For 14 centuries they have invaded "Christian" lands and oppressed those who live in them whenever they have had the military power to do so.

The only way we have ever stopped them is by defeating them.

Tom Maddux

Folks,

Here is a recent article by Cal Thomas.

Aquarius sunset

By Cal Thomas

 
 
 
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The ideologically decrepit anti-war crowd returned to Washington last weekend for a reunion. The older among them abandoned hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Vietnamese to imprisonment, torture, death and re-education camps. Their demonstrations were encouraging to the communist Vietnamese, sending the message that America lacked the will to win. These aging hippies and their progeny now want to do the same to millions of Iraqis, who have democratically elected their leaders.


This is the sunset of the "Age of Aquarius." Yesterday, when they were young, they were the pampered generation that eschewed self-control for self-indulgence. They were (and are) so vain; they probably thought the world was about them. They were the redeeming generation that would save their parents from their sins by ending war, curing racism and cleaning the air and water. Their failure has long been obvious to all but them. To them, intentions, not success, are paramount. Because they believe their intentions are noble, they absolve themselves from the negative consequences of their actions.


As with the Vietnam anti-war protests, several of the same Hollywood actors spoke against the effort to make Iraq a stable and independent nation. Hollywood is the land of make-believe where love means never having to say you're sorry and acting means never having to take responsibility for your words and behavior, which are written and directed by others. These stars live behind gates with security alarms and guards who protect their privileged lives.


Is there anyone else's freedom these celebrities would defend? Do any other lives have value beyond their own? Since none of the older demonstrators took responsibility for what occurred in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, would any like to pledge now that if their protests help embolden the insurgents and Taliban to fight on until Iraq is in their clutches they will accept blame?


Why do these people always oppose America's efforts to defend itself and others? Why did they not protest in Washington, or in Baghdad, when Saddam Hussein was practicing genocide and his sons were raping and torturing their fellow Iraqis? Will we ever see an anti-Taliban protest? How about a demonstration against suicide bombers, or even those who produce and detonate roadside bombs in Iraq? Why do these people think only their country is evil? 


This is the doctrine of the privileged and the pampered. It is salvation on the cheap. It makes the protestors feel good, even righteous, but does nothing to solve the problem, which isn't the United States, but a very real enemy that intends to kill us. Unlike Vietnam, the Islamofascists won't leave us alone if we leave Iraq before stability is established. They will send more fanatics to our shores. Watch the TV drama "24" for what could be our prophetic and imminent future with a nuclear device exploding in major cities. Having concluded we don't have the stomach to fight them on their turf, they might understandably deduce we are even less willing to fight them on ours.


While President Bush may have chosen Iraq and Afghanistan to counterattack in this war, the war would have come — and, indeed, had already come prior to the attacks on these two countries — had he decided to do nothing.


"Peace is controversial," said Jesse Jackson last weekend. His comment has about as much relevance in an age of terror as a declaration against lust. Peace doesn't result when America does nothing to confront evil. Peace comes through facing and defeating evil wherever and whenever we can. If freedom is not on the march against tyranny, then tyranny will be on the march against freedom. Neither is static. Peace doesn't "happen." To the extent peace can be attained on earth, it arrives through strength and willpower.


Forty years ago, the protestors pledged to achieve:




Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation

They liberated neither their minds, nor the world. The Vietnamese who were murdered were not liberated. Today's terrorists will not be defeated if we embrace the inane doctrines of the protestors.


A better song for them might be Brenda Lee's "I'm Sorry," the first part of which goes:




"I'm sorry, so sorry
That I was such a fool…"
.

That Cal Thomas article made me think of this familiar children's story:



Once there was a Little Red Hen who lived in a barnyard with her three chicks and a duck, a pig and a cat.

One day the Little Red Hen found some grains of wheat. "Look look!" she clucked. "Who will help me plant this wheat?"

"Not I", quacked the duck, and he waddled away.

"Not I", oinked the pig, and he trotted away.

"Not I, meowed the cat, and he padded away.

"Then I will plant it myself," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was tall and golden, the Little Red Hen knew it was ready to be cut. "Who will help me cut the wheat?" she asked.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the cat

"Then I will cut this wheat myself". And she did.

"Now", said the Little Red Hen, "it is time to take the wheat to the miller so he can grind it into flour. Who will help me?"

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the cat.

"Then I will take the wheat to the miller myself," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

The miller ground the wheat into fine white flour and put it into a sack for the Little Red Hen.

When she returned to the barnyard, the Little Red Hen asked, "Who will help me make this flour into dough?"

Not I," said the duck, the pig and the cat all at once.

"Then I will make the dough myself," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the dough was rready to go into the oven, the Little Red Hen asked, "Who will help me bake the bread?"

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the cat.

"Then I wll bake it myself," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

Soon the bread was ready. As she took it from the oven, the Little Red Hen asked, "Well who wil help me eat this warm, fresh bread?"

"I will," said the duck.

"I will," said the pig.

"I will," said the cat.

"No you won't," said the Little Red Hen. "You wouldn't help me plant the seeds, cut the wheat, go to the miller, make the dough or bake the bread. Now, my three chicks and I will eat this bread ourselves!"

And that's just what they did.

Unfortunately, the liberals in America who refuse to stay involved in anything for the long haul WILL get to eat the bread, the fruit of the labors of so many who gave their lives to depose a dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people. Liberals are always valiant at the beginning, but when it comes to the long haul they quickly fall to the wayside, blame their own country for atrocities, forget the atrocities perpetrated by the offender, and are quick to give up the original cause when it gets too tough or doesn't go their way. Liberals are filled with slogans and "ideals", but lacking in that character that endures and wins a conflict. Our pull-out of Vietnam was a disgrace, and led to millions of Vietnamese boat people coming to the United States to escape the oppressive government we gave them up to. Vietnam was a battle that could have been won---but because of a bunch of idealistic "whiners" millions of Vietnamese were abandoned, and left to toil under an oppressive Communist regime. The liberals will eat the bread--the freedom gained and assured to them--while at the same time complaining about the cost and dedication needed to keep that bread on their tables.

Despite the slant given by the media, and many others, the majority of the Iraqi people do not want the U.S. to leave---they know that if we abandon them they will quickly be forced to live under a regime that is probably worse than Saddam-----a strict, funadamentalist, Islamic regime, much like the Taliban. Because of some "whiners" here in the U.S. we will consign thousands of women to cruel, legalistic religious life-imprisonment. Millions who have just begun to taste what freedom is will be thrown once again into slavery---but this time not under a secular dictator, but under a religious dictatorship.

These anti-war people "care" so much for the Iraqi people, that they are willing to abandon them to a cruel fate. After we withdraw our troops too early and consign them to this fate, these same anti-war people will enjoy the bread others have slaved for, and find another "cause" to back. "Make love not war" is a great sounding slogan of the 60's--I'm sure the Vietnamese people abandoned to Communism after that war have posters with those words tacked to the walls of their huts (yeah--sure they do). And I'm sure the Iraqi people we give up on, and abandon, will have pictures of Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid on the walls of their houses also.   

Interesting...

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11163 (http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11163)

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Antichrist/anti_05.htm (http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Antichrist/anti_05.htm)

Another interesting article by Joseph Lieberman for the fray:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611)

Is there not a man-god that can finally set things right over there?
Then we could all have "peace".
(uh-oh)

"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer."(1Pe 4:7)

Hello All...

This is the first time that I've been back to the site in probably a couple years. I had to google GG to find the link, it's been so long.  Seems like most of the old Assembly crowd has moved onto other places.  That's good, I'm sure - The site is serving a different purpose today than it did in 2003.  Reviewing some of the old posts sure brought back some memories - Wow.

My family is fine - Ann is well.  Our five kids are growing-up and out.  My three oldest sons are on their own now - Ben's a Creative Director - Web Designer (as well as a reserve soldier), Jon is in the Army Special Forces, and Mike is in pre-med studies and is going to Iraq in two weeks as a Combat Medic (He's a reserve soldier and has been activated).  Ann and I have three sons in the military - not sure how that happened; I never served, I wasn't a hunter - nor, do I even own a gun.  Nellie is now a high school Junior and Sal our adopted son from Sierra Leone Africa is now a 6th grader...The house is getting empty for sure.

The Millers are having a big reunion next month in Nebraska - Chuck Miller is turning 80...Also, the Sjogren's daughter Kate is getting married - We're having a big get-together up there (We're in Kansas - so, it's a drive North)...the family from Illinois and California are coming as well.  Chuck Miller and MaryAnn are fine - they live a couple miles from us in an indepent living facility for the elderly.  They really enjoy it, I think.

The Millers have something like 35 grandkids now and two or three great-grandkids.  Spiritually the family has wound-up in a variety of places.  Some have deepened their faith and others are keeping "Christianity" a bit at arms length.  For all of us, there are lots of scars and pain.   Some of us are still not coping well with life, the Lord, the church, and what it all means.  However, I think everyone is becoming more real and more honest.  This is a big step for the family.  Slowly reconciliation appears to be happening, but the wounds are deep - So, it is slow.

There are several folks that I've fallen out of touch with and I just wanted to put down my email if there's a need for someone to get back in-touch with me.

There are many dear folks in this community...We all have shared some painful times.

Your friend...Chuck

chuck@vanant.com

::c:v::

Chuck

Folks,

Here is a link to an interesting article by a former Muslim radical.  He claims that they regularly laughed about the media explanations that terrorism was caused by poverty in the Muslim world.  He then goes on to explain that the terrorists are actually motivated by a particular type of Muslim theological reasoning.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

Tom Maddux

Hey!  FRPT up $1.94 today! SUPPORT THE TROOPS!   :D :D :D

Here is a link to an interesting article by a former Muslim radical.  He claims that they regularly laughed about the media explanations that terrorism was caused by poverty in the Muslim world.  He then goes on to explain that the terrorists are actually motivated by a particular type of Muslim theological reasoning.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

Tom Maddux

    Forgive me Tom, are you saying the  Muslim religion teaches people to kill?

  btw Just this last week, at a mosque here in Irvine the members turned in one of their own over to the authorities because he started talking about "Jihad". Muslims who believe that their religion justifies the killing  of innocents are just as deceived as Christians who believe it is God's Will to shoot "Family Planning Doctors"  To point at a fanatic and say, "See they are all like that." is grossly prejudice. So I know you aren't saying that?

David,

You asked:

I read through the Koran back in 1962 when I was about 20 years old.  I don't remember all I read.  I do, however, remember that I was shocked by the verses that advocated killing unbelievers.  Here are a couple of verses that apply to this:


    1- "O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing" (Sura al-Tawba 9:123).

    2- "Fight against those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger, have forbidden -- such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humbled" (Sura al-Tawba 9:29).

"Those who have been given the book" means Christians and Jews.

    3- "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" (Sura Al Ma idah 5:33).

I haven't been able to find another verse I remember reading, but what it said was that if you, (a Muslim), are fighting unbelievers you are to offer them the chance to convert.  if they do, enslave them. If they refuse, kill them.

Dave, I am the online instructor for a class in World Religions and Science, offered through Hope International University.  So I have done some study about Islam and other major religions.

Islam is a large religion with many branches and internal disagreements.  When Muslim leaders take these verses, (and others), and combine them with a certain understanding of Islam's policy on war, the community of their followers becomes downright dangerous.

In general, Muslims ascribe to five principles about holy war. Stated simply they are:

1. Physical violence cannot be used to advance Islam.

2. Islam is to be spread by rational appeal and persuasion.

3. War is allowable in self-defense.

4. If a country does not allow the free expression of Islam, those actions constitute physical aggression against Islam.  This includes any laws that prohibit any Islamic practices. Muslims can make war to liberate the "oppressed" Muslims.

5. Once a country has had an Islamic government it belongs to Dar-al-Islam, (The House of Submission).  It can never be allowed to revert to non-Islamic hands.

In the past, during the era of state religions, Muslim armies invaded non-Muslim countries on the basis of #4.  The Muslim refusal to recognize Israel is based on #5.  Even the prohibition of Muslim polygamy is seen by many Muslims as a violation of #4. Since Western countries have universal adult suffrage, we are all seen as guilty of making laws against Islam.

So, the answer to your question is that for many Muslims, Islam teaches them to kill non-Muslims.  All it takes is for a Muslim to come under the influence of a teacher who convinces him that we have broken their rules.

There are many Muslims who do not go along with these ideas.  However, the radical's tendency to kill folks that oppose them severly limits public dissent.

So, I guess I would answer, "yes and no", but enough yes to make me quite worried.

Thomas Maddux

Has Bush met his benchmarks?


http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y


OHHHH YYYYEEEEAAA!!!!! >:D >:D >:D >:D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101356.html

Wow! Iraqi Prime Minister says we can leave!




 

July 14, 2007 2:19 PM EDT
BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."

One of his top aides, meanwhile, accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."

Al-Maliki sought to display confidence at a time when pressure is mounting in Congress for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces. On Thursday, the House passed a measure calling for the U.S. to withdraw its troops by spring, hours after the White House reported mixed progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting 18 benchmarks.


During a press conference, al-Maliki shrugged off the progress report, saying that difficulty in enacting the reforms was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.

"We are not talking about a government in a stable political environment but one in the shadow of huge challenges," al-Maliki said. "So when we talk about the presence of some negative points in the political process, that's fairly natural."

Al-Maliki said his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks - "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

But he said if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.

"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he said.

One of al-Maliki's close advisers, Shiite lawmaker Hassan al-Suneid, bristled over the American pressure, telling The Associated Press that "the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."

He sharply criticized the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations and embarrassing the Iraqi government through such tactics as building a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and launching repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital's slum of Sadr City.

He also criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala provinces, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. "These are gangs of killers," he said.

In addition, he said that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, who he said works along a "purely American vision."

"There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," al-Suneid said.

Al-Suneid's comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki's inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the U.S.-drawn list of benchmarks.

But the U.S. focus on the benchmarks has rankled the deep sense of Iraqi pride, even among those who share the goals set forth by the Americans.

U.S. forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring calm to the capital while al-Maliki enacts the political reforms, intended to give Sunni Arabs a greater role in the government and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.

But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one-month vacation - a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through reforms while American soldiers are dying.

Two more American soldiers were killed Saturday in bombings in the Baghdad area, the U.S. military reported. One of the bombs used was an explosively formed penetrator - high-tech devices that the U.S. military believes are smuggled from Iran. The Iranians deny the charge.

In other violence, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police said.


Also Saturday, the U.S. military said it captured an alleged high-level al-Qaida in Iraq cell leader at Baghdad's international airport. The suspect, believed to have organized mortar and roadside bomb attacks in the capital and nearby area, surrendered "without a struggle," the military said in a statement.

It did not give details on the suspect or say whether he was traveling in or out of the country when seized.

The Reuters news agency said one of its Iraqi translators was shot to death in Baghdad on Wednesday along with two of his brothers, apparent victims of sectarian death squads. He was the third employee of the news agency killed in Baghdad this week.

An Iraqi reporter for The New York Times, Khalid W. Hassan, was killed by gunmen Friday as he drove to work in southern Baghdad.

Folks,

On this morning's news I heard a sound clip from a recent speech by Hillary Clinton.  She announced, "The surge is working in Anbar province and in other places as well."

US senators have access to information we that we don't know about yet.  I wonder what she heard.  It sounds to me as if she is thinking "Uh Oh, we might win this thing and I had better get in position to be able to claim that I backed it all along".

Time will tell.

I wonder if Harry Reid has finished surrendering yet?


Tom Maddux

Tom,

   Although Hillary has stated the failures of the administration I have never heard her say she was for leaving. For her to say the surge is working doesn't make her a "flip-Flopper" If I am correct she has supported the war, along with the vast majority of Democrats, all the way from day 1. 


   As far as Iraq being a good idea! Just about everyone has conceded it was a bad idea! Do I need to post an address that supports this statement?  Will the surge work?  What do they mean by work? The only thing they are concerned about is "The sharing of the oil revenues!" (Quote from Bush two days ago.) This means sharing it with Exxon, Standard, Shell etc...

   Even if we were to decide to "cut and run" today we would still need two years to just get the equipment out! 

     I see 6 more years of occupation, 6 more years of pouring billions of our American tax dollars into a Bush devastated nation. 6 more years of U.S. soldiers dying so Cheney and friends can eat at 5 star restaurants and put around on 50 million dollar yachts.


  What disgusts me most about all of this mess is the fact that 8o% + Christians in the U.S.A. (you included) strongly supported invading a country based on pure propaganda! You ignored the fact that innocent people would die. I can't figure out how this is Christian? Why did you guys do this? Couldn't you just ask some simple questions like, "Mr. President, could we please see some real evidence of Saddam's nuclear weapons program?" or "Mr. President could the weapons inspectors give the American people a clear report as to what they have seen in Iraq on March of 03?"


   The simple fact is "You were had" During the early 90's George Bush went on all the Televangelist programs to anounce, "I believe God wants me to become President of the United States." He said all the right things, attended CBS "Community Bible Study", repenting of his former lifestyle of drunkeness etc... Pretty soon every Christian minister in the country was pushing their congregation to "Vote for the canidate that represents your values!" The rest is history! I can't understand why Unitarians, who are ignorant blind heathens, could see it yet, Born Again Christians, who have the Holy Spirit, could not?


   You have helped bring our country into its present condition. Thanks!




     :'(

I see 6 more years of occupation, 6 more years of pouring billions of our American tax dollars into a Bush devastated nation. 6 more years of U.S. soldiers dying so Cheney and friends can eat at 5 star restaurants and ride around on 50 million dollar yachts.    .............

The rest is history! I can't understand why Unitarians, who are ignorant blind heathens, could see it yet, Born Again Christians, who have the Holy Spirit, could not?


   You have helped bring our country into its present condition. Thanks! :'(

Thanks for those two very important points. It is an established fact that there are no Unitarians who eat at 5 star restaurants or own 50 million dollar yachts. And secondly, every one of them clearly saw that we should not enter Iraq---Unitarians are very special people and I would hope that each one of us stop for a moment and say a word of thanks to the wise Unitarians---they had far more information than the rest of us had concerning WMD's in Iraq--they knew the information coming from the CIA and being given to Bush was wrong due to their amazing common sense. We born-again Christians with the Holy Spirit should have known the CIA was giving the wrong information to Bush. What do we learn from this? if you want to make any major decisions, don't pray---ask a Unitarian.


 ;D

Quite an awesome scenario..

http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf (http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf)

Trac4ty,

Awesome is right.  I checked with www.snopes.com, a site that investigates urban legends and internet frauds.  No mention of it there.

However, I did find this.  Snopes says it is valid.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

It would seem that "Bush lied and people died is just a tad too narrowly focused. 

Tom Maddux

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040827-8.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Does anyone out there think that mike huckabee is a true christian. Or at least as much of one as a politician can be?

Hi Doug,

  Only God really knows what is going on inside of a person.  This leaves us with the sole option to observe behavior ("by their fruits you shall know them").  Jimmah Carter  ;) (Jimmy Carter) professes to be a born again Christian, and supposedly witnessed to Anwar Sadat when he visited the US, but I would never vote for someone like him for President.

  I think when voting for a civil leader of a country it is best to vote for the candidate that best shares the kind of values a Christain can support vs. what their profession of faith might be.  I'd rather have a Romney, with his cultic theology, leading the country than a Jimmah Carter with his wacko Michael Moore views of the world and government.

                                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

Ditto!

Tom Maddux

I'ts a pretty sad comment on the unfortunate state of American governance and the client pool when someone posits a choice between a mormon and a michael moore clone.
What about someone who had a sterling record in the senate but who secretly practiced witchcraft?

Hi Doug,

  I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

                                               God Bless,  Mark C.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

I received this e-mail earlier this week as well.  I'll preface my statement by saying "who am I to really know what is going on in the world and what is really happening?"  I'm willing to admit there is lots going on that I don't know about.

Having said that, here is my opinion:  This video has all the feel of a conspiracy theory film of which there are thousands.  It reminds me watching films in the 1970's predicting getting us to pack our bags for the 1980's rapture because of the European common market, Kissinger and the imbedded chips that were "just around the corner".

Couple of things that strike me as a bit dubious.  Folks in US have a government card as early as May 2008?  That's only five months away.  Better get busy. 

We're going to disolve the US and become one with Mexico and Canada and no one will protest?  OK, anything can happen in 20-50 years but now any time soon.

We can't get folks to wear show restraint or wear condoms to stop the HIV/Aids crisis and everyone is going to just line up and use a vchip because they say so?

If we learned anything from Michael Moore, you can prove anything with a video camera and an editing bay.

Ask me in five or ten years, but I'm not a believer yet.

Doug,

Around six months ago a gentleman in my adult fellowship at E Free Fullerton told me all about the "North American Union".  He told me that they were planning a super highway to connect Mexico with Canada, and that the US Constitution was going to be overthrown.  There was more, but that is what I remember.

I asked him that I had heard some talk of this on some Right Wing radio talk shows, and asked him if he had any verifiable information.  In other words, some facts that I could check in some way.  He said he had "proof" at home.

So, the next week he brought me a letter.  It was a fund raising letter from none other than Congressman Ron Paul, currently a candidate for President.  The letter was a typical political fund raising letter.  They all follow the same pattern.  First they try to scare your pants off by telling you that the evil environmentalists/corporations/Democrats/Republicans/Oil Companies/Socialists/Religious Right/Abortion Lobby/Gay Lobby/Gun Lobby, and on and on and on...are going to do something horrible to you, your family, America, or whatever.  Next comes the request for you to send money to fight this horrible evil.

The letter contained one, and one only, verifiable fact.  It said that a meeting had taken place a couple of years back between the three North American presidents.  They had signed an agreement to set up the "Ottowa Accord" (I think it was Ottowa anyway).

So, I googled it.  On the internet I found out that it really exists, and that the folks that volunteer to patrol the border, the Minute Men, had filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit to force public disclosure of its documents.  They had posted around 500 documents on their website.

Soooo, I went to their website, read the index, and then read a few documents.  They were about things like standardizing the customs forms and security procedures for imports and exports.  The purpose seemed to be to expedite trade.  So, I concluded it was a trade agreement, nothing more.  That doesn't worry me.  In the index I couldn't find any mention of a highway.

So, I suspect that this is just another conspiracy theory propagated by the right wing of the right wing here in the USA.  I rank it right alongside the ideas of the folks that keep lists of Black Helicopter sightings as signs of a UN invasion of  the United States.

The video brings up the Council on Foreign Relations.  That was a favorite bogeyman of the folks who were saying that president Jimmy Carter was head of the Illuminati, a council of 13 witches that ran the US.  I guess they gave up on hexing us into the One World Government and decided to sneak it in by deep conspiratorial conferences that are reported about on the evening news and in the papers.  When I searched for that accord I found in on several media websites like the New York Times.

Soooo...I'm not too worried about it just yet.

Tom Maddux

Oh, the new highway is real alright.

from http://www.dot.state.tx.us/news/001-2006.htm

That next generation of transportation infrastructure is the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), and, with a viable private-sector proposal under consideration to build TTC-35, TxDOT and NASCO will work together to ensure development of this larger trade corridor.

"NASCO shares our vision in realizing the importance of developing a new corridor to not only improve transportation and safety in Texas, but to further cement our trade bonds with Canada and Mexico," Williamson said.

If you can't trust the Texas Dept. of Transportation's website than who can you trust?

more info here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50803 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50803)

Here's the plan from NASCO's website.
(http://777denny.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/nasco-nafta-superhighway.jpg)



BTW, the New York Times is worth slightly less than toliet paper, same goes for TV news from the big three and CNN which, seeing that there is no actual paper involved, isn't worth even that. (Fox isn't that great either given that it's partly owned and influenced by a Saudi prince).

Gu3st,

I share your disdain for the ultra-left rag known as the New York Times.  My point, however, was that one can hardly point to a meeting and an international agreement reported in the public media as a deep dark conspiracy.  Conspiracies, by nature are secret.

Regarding the highway which is usually referred to on radio talk shows as the "NAFTA Highway", you have certainly produced some verifiable evidence of the plan.  Once again, however, something placed on the website of a state agency is certainly not a secret. 

It looks to me as if Texas wishes its Gulf ports to siphon off some of the business now dominated by Atlantic and Pacific coast ports.  Once again, I fail to see what the connection could be to a secret plot to merge the USA into a unified North American state.

Tom Maddux

Hmm....
In a rather nasty way, I like these routes, as long as the cities are shown for reference only, and the train has no stop-overs as it heads north, unless of course the transport is legal.
Moonflower

Folks,

Here is a quote from a skeptical philosopher, John Stewart Mill:

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”


Hmmmmm.

Tom Maddux

 Yes Tom! and guess what? These people have nothing for which they are willing to fight for! Meanwhile our U.S. dollars continue to disapear down a black whole, our U.S. servicemen continue to die? For what you claim is "A Good Idea"


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=11245

 You continue to proclaim "patriotism" What is patriotic about the Iraqi government?

   


http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr23/0,4670,USIraqOil,00.html

    As you know the State of California is having a financial crisis, the schools are cutting back teachers, librarians, (We just lost ours) Our national economy sucks, unless you are invested in oil!


At the beginning of the war I believe it was Paul Bremmer who said the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Well now they can! But I have a sick feeling inside we will never see this happen.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20080430/4817eec0_3421_1334520080430-858074354

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bush-disapproval-rating-makes-history/20080501200009990002?icid=100214839x1201204562x1200044287

History may prove that going into Iraq was not a good idea.  Nevertheless, blaming declaring war on Bush is a bit of a non-sequator that his opponents (those livid that Gore could not make the courts turn the election in his favor) are really stuck on.

The truth is, going into Iraq was supported by both parties based upon Intelligence that later proved either faulty or dated (if Saddam had WMDs, he apparently moved them).

I know this is a long-shot but if Joseph Lieberman were to be the running-mate of McCain, I would certainly vote for him.  Mr. Lieberman is one Democrat who didn't white-wash his vote and faced the consequences sticking with his convictions over simply mouthing the party's line.

By the way, here is a great piece on how true liberalism was overtaken by leftism in the 1960's.  Ironically, it used to be the liberal who fought against evil (Korea, Vietnam) and the conservatives who were isolationists until the disarray of the 1960's brought opportunity for the radical fringe of liberalism to take over.  The leftist redefinition of evil from standing against totalitarian governments to standing against those who exploit the ozone as well as the embracing of radical feminism, abortion without compromise and empowering homosexuality caused folks to find their home on the (albiet imperfect) conservative side of the fence.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/04/15/how_liberals_lost_a_liberal (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/04/15/how_liberals_lost_a_liberal)

Can Obama fix this divide through "change"?   Can McCain fix this by being a maverick in his own party?  I think that is the attraction as folks feels they can but I'm not so sure.

The truth is, going into Iraq was supported by both parties based upon Intelligence that later proved either faulty or dated (if Saddam had WMDs, he apparently moved them).


   Yes Dave I agree that both parties supported to invasion! Was it based on intelligence? 

  Which intelligence are you talking about? The yellow-cake BS that Joe Wilson debunked before the invasion or the "curve-ball testimony" that was debunked by German  operatives before the invasion? The truth is Mr. Stupid placed a bet on the fact that as long as the invasion was a success, people wouldn't care about the lack of WMD's. He could/did claim that regardless of WMD's we have brought "Democracy" to the mideast. The sick truth is that Dems went along for the ride because if Mr. Stupid's bet won then their careers were over. The lies wouldn't have mattered! (Do they matter now?) It wouldn't have mattered that innocent people, women and children were incinerated, it wouldn't have mattered that 4 thousand U.S. servicemen have died, it wouldn't have mattered that 30 thousand are permanently physically injured, not to mention the U.S. servicemen who have committed suicide, have been diagnosed as mentally ill etc... It wouldn't matter Dave because as long as our government could show a profit we won the bet! I continue to be amazed at the lack of consequence for Mr. Stupid and others for their lies! When will they be held accountable?  when?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

  Dave, what is it you find wrong with "feminism"?  Is it "equal pay for equal work"? Please tell me? If not what?

What do you mean by "empowering homosexuality"? If gays get married how will this threaten you?

"Abortion"? Does a girl who has been raped have the right to an abortion? 


Dave, I can understand why governments do what they do. I can understand the philosophy that "Might makes right"! But I don't understand where Christ comes in on this. Where do you find these teachings in the New Testament?

The ugly truth is, just like the Dems, Christians went along for the ride! They did this because they really aren't Christians! Not in accordance to the teachings of the New Testament! Just like the rest of america they really believe that "might makes right"! When will they read and believe the teachings of Christ?


 

Can Obama fix this divide through "change"? 

    What divide?  Look at the number of dems voting in the primaries! It has been 2:1 to the Repubs!  This next election is a landslide!

Please try to read with a bit more comprehension and reaction without reflection.

I said "radical feminism", not feminism.
Equal pay for equal work:  good.  If that is all feminism was, most women and men like me would be on board.
Feminists dressing up as vaginas at the local University, holding posters of genitilia saying "this is the only Bush I'm into":  bad - radical feminism is out of touch.  This is why few "soccer moms" identify with feminism.  It only flourishes on University campuses instead of in the life of the average woman.

I said "abortion without compromise", not merely the most compassion-inspiriting circumstances of abortion as you suggest.  If abortion was allowed only in the case of rape or incest, it would never have been the issues it was today.  But you know, David, that that isn't where the vast majority of abortions are.  Several million women aren't raped each year.  Conservatives won't allow a single abortion.  Liberals won't allow any backing down to the extent of pushing partial-birth abortion and abortion on demand for any and all reason.

Is there no middle ground?  Does sex as I please with no consequences always trump a nation of restraint and self-control?

When commentators speak of "the divide", they are not talking about how many people are out voting as you suggest.  (Of course Democrats and cross-over Republicans are going to vote - they actually have an election going on).   They are talking about this moral-divide where each side takes the most extreme position and shows the other side as unintelligent.  (Evil is totalitarian goverments vs. evil is harming the ozone;  taxes should be done to redistribute wealth vs. taxes should be done in a way to stimulate the economy; abortions should be free to all for any reason vs abortions should be free to no one etc.)

You see, David, what people are looking for with this divide is someone who will look at issues and not take the "we're right and the other side is just plain foolish" as you so aptly demonstrate in your post as well as the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Al Frankin, Ann Coulter and others.  Folks are tired of the "culture war" and the "red states vs. blue states" battle.  What post-baby-boomers are attracted to is someone who can say, "Hey, why don't we find a way to affirm the rights of the women as well as affirm the rights of the baby?  Isn't there a middle ground that can affirm both?"

For the last two decades, the approach is (Conservative) stand for the life of the baby no matter how difficult it is for the women or (you) stand for the needs of the woman no matter what happens to the baby.

To the post-baby-boomer, the whole paradigm of battle needs to be changed.  Obama bills himself as someone who can do that which , but, as I said, I'm not so sure.

When we went into Iraq, Republicans and Democrats voted to go to war based upon Intelligence information they had.  If that information proved faulty later (which I understand is what happened), it doesn't make these people liars.  It means they all made a decision based upon the information they had at the time.  Blaming it all on one person who voted who they don't happen to like is silly.

VanDave,

You said:


Hmmmm.  Christians believe that "might makes right".

Actually, after 47 years as a Christian I have never heard a single Christian say this.  I have never seen a credal statement, a denominational statement of faith, an organizational statement of faith, or a church statement of faith that stated this.

On what did you base this claim?  Did you perhaps conduct a survey?

Many Christians supported the invasion of Iraq.  Perhaps they had other reasons than the belief you accuse us of holding. 

I suspect your accusation is based on nothing but your own prejudices.

Thomas Maddux

VanDave,

You might want to think a little more clearly when you argue your position.  For example, the two links you offer as "evidence" to support your position.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

The first one about "Curveball" leads to a page that says, "Wikipedia has no article on this subject".  The other leads to an artilce about "What I did not find" and then goes on to talk about the Scooter Libby affair.  Do you really want national policy to be based on op ed articles when the intelligence gathering agencies of France, Britain, Russia, Germany and Israel plus your own CIA are telling you something different?

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

This was the article I posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

I don't know why it did that?

(Quote from first article)
Criticism, investigation, and damage control
In 2003, inspectors led by David Kay conducted additional investigation of Curveball's credibility. They found among other things that he placed last in his university class when he had claimed to place first, and that he had been jailed for embezzlement before fleeing to Germany. The former point is relevant because Curveball claimed to have been hired out of university to head Iraq's bioweapons program. That he had placed last in his class would cast considerable doubt on this claim.

In response to public criticism, U.S. president Bush initiated an investigative commission who released their report on March 31, 2005. Bush's investigative commission came to many conclusions including:

Curveball's German intelligence handlers saw him as "crazy ... out of control", his friends called him a "congenital liar", and US officials investigating his claims were surprised that he had a hangover and that he "might be an alcoholic".[13]
While there were many reports that Curveball was actually a relative of one of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) top aides,[14][6] the investigative commission stated that it was "unable to uncover any evidence that the INC or any other organization was directing Curveball."[15]
The Bush administration ignored evidence from the UN weapons inspectors that Curveball's claims were false. Curveball had identified a particular Iraqi facility as a docking station for mobile labs. Satellite photography had showed a wall made such access impossible, but it was theorised that this wall was temporary. "When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors visited the site on February 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball's statements."[16] Instead, the inspectors found the warehouse to be used for seed processing.[17]


Quote from second article

"What I Didn't Find in Africa", published in the New York Times four months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Wilson's op-ed documented his 2002 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) investigation into whether Iraq had purchased or attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Niger. He concluded that the George W. Bush administration twisted intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat."[6]


quote from Tom,

 Do you really want national policy to be based on op ed articles when the intelligence gathering agencies of France, Britain, Russia, Germany and Israel plus your own CIA are telling you something different?

Oh Tom Please share with us what they said!

Quote from Tom
 On what did you base this claim?  Did you perhaps conduct a survey?

   I have read a number of times that 80% of evangelicals supportted the invasion. Plus the fact that I am surrounded by evangelicals where I work, Over half the teachers at Beatty are from Biola.

Why?  I am sure they will tell you things like "freedom isn't free" I just received an Email from my teammember titled "Why we are fighting"  It is a slide show of 911 (Both reasons have nothing to do with why we invaded.) They were NOT a threat, intelligence proved that, and Iraq, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911!

   I will try to find a link.

When we went into Iraq, Republicans and Democrats voted to go to war based upon Intelligence information they had.  If that information proved faulty later (which I understand is what happened), it doesn't make these people liars.  It means they all made a decision based upon the information they had at the time.  Blaming it all on one person who voted who they don't happen to like is silly.


  Again, What intelligence are you talking about?

                         Saying that "information proved faulty" (for the second time) but not specifically stating the evidence is silly!

Dave, I can agree with most of what you said about a people looking for a middleground, sure we are "sick of extremes" yet, when you talk about "radical feminists" aren't you just pointing to "extremes"? Honestly how are these women representing the feminist agenda? How do they pose a threat to anyone?

   During the 1980's people like Jerry Fallwell, Rush Limbaugh...etc started a campaign to demonize democrats. During the Clinton administration millions of tax dollars were spent on "investigating White Water, "The Murder of Vince Foster"  These investigations, of which Ken Star admitted he went too far, revealed nothing. But as you know Clinton was done in by Adultry! Newt Gingrich. who led the charge and now openly admits he was committing adultry at the time. Why? Why all this attack?  What was Clinton doing politically at the time? NAFTA! WORKFARE! So don't try to put an equal amount of blame on Democrats! Republicans got us here! Now eat your crow!!!!

Whatever intelligence or information these folks read at the time that caused them to vote for the war.  I doubt if the Democrats and Republicans who voted for the war voted by tossing a coin.  There was something that cause them to believe at that time that war was necessary.  I surely don't think Bush said, "hey, let's go to war" and everyone said "OK, sounds good."  There was some compelling reason that these folks agreed with him at the time and voted in this way.

The feminist organizations tend to focus in more on the more radical issues popular on campuses.  If they spent more energy on equal-pay-for-equal-work (which is less of an issues today with strict HR rules) and fighting the exploitation of women through pornography and forced prostitution instead of abortion without exception and showing the Vagina Monologues on campus they would be more in touch with the values of mainstream women.  The point is that because these women’s organizations have emphasized the values of extreme leftism most women don’t associated themselves with these groups.  They don't pose a threat.  They are just seen as too radical and irrelevant by most women.

You bet.  I mentioned Rush Limbaugh below.  Your exclamation point seem to indicate that you see your statement as a great trump but I made the same point so crow has already been eaten.  Nevertheless, while I had participated in the past in Clinton jokes and bashing, I no longer do this.  Having now been on the other side and witnessed the extreme frustration and anger of Democrats when Gore was not able to use the courts to cherry-pick votes and turn the election around to his liking, I realize how hurtful the politics of anger has become.

Folks,

After all the "Bush lied and people died" hoopla, now some facts are being released.  It seems that in 2003 the US forces captured 550 metric tons of yellowcake, a form of enriched uranium, in a storage site only 12 miles from Bagdad.  Yellowcake is one stage of the process by which natural uranium is enriched for one of two purposes: a. fuel for nuclear reactors. b. nuclear bombs.

The US and Iraq kept this information secret until it was safe to transport the stuff out of the country.  Even then they had to fly out  about 3500 barrels of the stuff in USAF transport aircraft to an island in the Indian Ocean where we have an air base. They were afraid to ship it by land through areas where there are lots of militants.

From the island, Diego Garcia, the stuff was put on a ship and sent to Canada.  In Canada it will be refined into fuel for nuclear reactors.

Now, if Saddam Hussein was not trying to develop nuclear bombs, what was he doing with this stuff?  Iraq has no reactors that need nuclear fuel.

Here are two links about this event.  BTW, did you notice all the apologies in the liberal media lately about how wrong they were about Saddam's WMD program?

I haven't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumyellowcake.htm

Tom Maddux

Thanks, Tom.  I always thought the "Bush lied people died" mantra epitomized the disingenuous nature of soundbite politics.  There had to be a reason so many Doves in congress agreed to vote to go to war.  They had to know something that it was not later politically expedient to admit.  Bush was not perfect by any stretch, but I think history will vindicate some of his doctrines.

In 1981 the Israeli airforce put an end to Iraq's nuclear ambitions by bombing a key nuclear reactor at Al Tuwaitha. Another much less capable reactor there was destroyed during Desert Storm in 1991.
The uraniumm the government announced as being removed this year was part of a decades-old stock-pile that had previously been indentified by UN inspectors and really has nothing at all to do with the case made for the most recent invasion of Iraq.
It is truly sad to see how these pathetic attempts to mislead and mis-inform the American public continue in a futile effort to try and salvage some sort of legacy for this sad president.
Even if the weak arguments about WMDs were entirely true, it in no way in my view lessens the unbelieveable criminality of the way Cheny and others conspired to leak Ms. Plame's indentity to the public.
In my humble opinion, a careful review of the facts will lead one to conclude that the media has absolutely nothing to apolgise for in this unfortunate saga.