Letter of Apology

[BillyBob]

Compliments of Frank Ernest:
[Author unknown - sentiment shared]


For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre.

I heard some Arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs.

I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools.

I am sorry that Yassir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and hijacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA.

I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this.

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins. I can't seem to find one here on Earth.

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target.

I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs.

I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. (Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones)

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site".

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.

I am sorry the French are french?

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.

[On Fire]

:chuckle:

[Crow]

That last line....:darwinsm:

[PureX]

Let's look only at the good things we do, so that we can ignore the bad things we do. That way we can feel really righteous about ourselves and avoid having to take responsibility for anything that might impune our egos.

OK?

[Lucky]

Who is only looking at the good things we do? :confused:

[Poly]

Originally posted by PureX

Let's look only at the good things we do, so that we can ignore the bad things we do. That way we can feel really righteous about ourselves and avoid having to take responsibility for anything that might impune our egos.

OK?

Are we letting this matter go? Is something being done about it? Are you ever capable of seeing a point that is trying to be made?

We are expected to give an apology to something miniscule in comparison to the evil that they've committed. They're certainly not going to offer apologies to us. Sounds to me as if as far as your concerned they shouldn't be expected to suffer any consequences whatsoever for their actions but by golly, we'd better be willing to just offer whalings and apologies if we even sneeze wrong. :rolleyes:

[NavyDude]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I am sorry the French are french?
:crackup:

[Redfin]

Gary King (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art27002.asp) attributes this to Chuck Pitman, Lieutenant General, US Marine Corps (Retired). The "French" line is not in that version.

[Redfin]

The "other side" apparently has some thoughts on this too...

Letter of Apology
(author unknown)

In Italics:
Response to Letter
(Ralou)


For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre.

It's not minor. Americans have maimed, tortured, and murdered prisoners since the war in Afghanistan began. It has continued on in Iraq. If it were your family member, you would want vengeance, not belittlement.

I heard some Arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here:

None of this is an apology. It's squirming out of the facts, negating evidence, belittling suffering, and pointing fingers and saying 'they're bad, too!' rather than accepting blame and being willing to fix the problem.

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

That doesn't excuse the times before when we took up arms against Muslims, such as in Iran, Iraq (we armed Saddam, he attacked Muslims, therefore, we had a hand in it), and Indonesia (we support to this day human rights violators who murder Muslims and others).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

No, a call for their heads on sticks came. And for the heads of any government who supported them. And for the head of a government who didn't even support them. Now, what if our heads are called for over Abu Ghraib?

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs.

Does this justify Abu Ghraib for you?

I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

Our favorite Arab regime, Saudi Arabia, is the worst for this, yet we support them to this day. In fact, Iran gave power to its people in a referendum over oil revenues. The people voted in a way we didn't like. They voted to nationalize Iran's oil. Our planes started bombing a couple days later.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools.

Not all do. In fact, many of the friendly governments in these regions are repressing the few democratic reforms that have been achieved in order to stop their people from sending support and even fighters to Iraq. The hate is often bred by our own actions. And by our support for brutal dictators friendly to our interests. Like Saddam Hussein was for thirty years.

I am sorry that Yassir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and hijacked the Palestinian "cause."

Do you honestly think that, without Arafat, there would be no 'Palestinian Cause'?

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.[

They don't take them in or help them because they want the Palestinians to keep fighting.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA.

They are sorry that their oil wealth has, for decades, been siphoned out of their treasuries and into corporate hands, depriving them of the wealth of their own nations.

I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this.

Wrong. We do understand. We also understand what the media doesn't tell us. We understand what the right will not even look squarely at: that America's own actions have bred most of the hatred others feel toward us.

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

The Iraqis are sorry we supported Saddam for thirty years, and they are also sorry that many of our own corporations participated in this Oil for Food Scandal. They are likely also sorry that millions starved and died because of our sanctions.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

They are sorry our fighter pilots get paid to drop cluster bombs on civilian areas.

I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins. I can't seem to find one here on Earth.
I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target.

I am wondering why you are looking for a virgin. Clearly, you aren't one, or you would have found one.
They are sorry that their children have been maimed and killed by our bombs.

I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs.

They are sorry that people like you seem to define the word 'freedom' in such a way that occupation, death, maiming, and torture in our prisons constitutes the 'freedom' those troops died for. I'm sure the troops are sorry, too.

I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

They are sorry to be in the middle of a civil war with two sides supported by Iraqis: our side, and their side.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

They are sorry that we have mercenaries from Pinochet's brutal regime and from the apartheid regime of South Africa in their country. They see this as an indication that we intend to terrorize, brutalize, torture, and murder any Iraqi who feels free to disagree with our occupation.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. (Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones)

They are sorry we cluster bombed Baghdad (note, cluster bombs are known for indiscriminately maiming and killing civilians). They are also no doubt sorry about our use of napalm.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site".

They are no doubt sorry they don't have the foliage of Vietnam to fight from.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.[

They are sorry that some Americans are still so ignorant that they think Iraqis were on that plane.

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.

I am sorry Bush is President. He couldn't care less about feeding a medium sized village anywhere.

I am sorry the French are french?

I am sorry that fascism, racism, and other isms are growing steadily in America today.

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

The higher levels responsible will never be punished. The dirty laundry only got hung because those cameras (hated openly by Rumsfeld) found there way into the prison. 6000 pages of the Taguba report, minus fifty or so pages of excerpts, and thousands of photos and videos, and the names of contractors and Military Intelligence officers involved, have not been hung out. We are all sorry about that. It tells us that our Government has no intention of coming clean.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujans.

Prisoners were murdered and raped. But most Americans ducked deep down to avoid the truth. As usual. "So what?" comes from deliberate ignorance. It's also evident that reports that at least 60 percent and perhaps 90 percent of all Abu Ghraib prisoners were innocent of any crime has also been ducked by the willfully ignorant.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.

They don't want your kind of American to apologize. They want your kind of American in a place where flames, and not virgins, dance around you for eternity.

I don't blame them.

Source (http://ralou.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2004/10/24/165810.html)

[PureX]

Originally posted by Poly

Are we letting this matter go? Is something being done about it? Are you ever capable of seeing a point that is trying to be made?

We are expected to give an apology to something miniscule in comparison to the evil that they've committed. They're certainly not going to offer apologies to us. Sounds to me as if as far as your concerned they shouldn't be expected to suffer any consequences whatsoever for their actions but by golly, we'd better be willing to just offer whalings and apologies if we even sneeze wrong. :rolleyes: When we as individuals or as a nation, screw up, we should admit it and make amends for our screw up as best we can.

We invaded another country under false pretenses and we killed many thousands of people. You think this is a "miniscule" error? Somehow I suspect that the thousands of families who've lost loved ones because of our "miniscule" mistake would feel differently. Yet the point of this thread seemed to be to glorify some of the good things we've done (for other muslims) so that we can ignore having to take responsibility for this horrible and deadly mistake. And in fact this seems to likewise be the point of your post.

I understood the "point" of this thread quite clearly. And that's why I wasn't going to let it go unchallenged.

[Poly]

Originally posted by PureX

When we as individuals or as a nation, screw up, we should admit it and make amends for our screw up as best we can. And we are doing something about it.

We invaded another country under false pretenses and we killed many thousands of people. You think this is a "miniscule" error? Somehow I suspect that the thousands of families who've lost loved ones because of our "miniscule" mistake would feel differently. Yet the point of this thread seemed to be to glorify some of the good things we've done (for other muslims) so that we can ignore having to take responsibility for this horrible and deadly mistake. And in fact this seems to likewise be the point of your post.


I understood the "point" of this thread quite clearly. And that's why I wasn't going to let it go unchallenged.
OOOO!! PureX has done his "holy deed for the day" in challenging this thread.
I still say you need to get your "point" checker checked.
The point of the letter was in response to the enemy seeking an apology for an isolated event. Not the war as a whole and yeah, we all know how you feel about the war as a whole. :yawn:

[PureX]

Originally posted by Poly The point of the letter was in response to the enemy seeking an apology for an isolated event. Not the war as a whole and yeah, we all know how you feel about the war as a whole. We owe them an apology for all of it. Though what good an apology would do without making amends is questionable. And how do we make amends for such an incredible blunder? How do we make amends for killing thousands and thousands of people based on lies?

This is why Bush can't face his own cataclysmic mistake, and why most Americans would rather continue the killing than admit to themselves what we've really done.

And this is why we're an embarrassment among nations, just as an individual that would behave this way is an embarrassment among men.

[aikido7]

What about not apologizing for the United States being the divine city on the hill which can decide that "freedom" is the right of every person and the future of every nation, and that the liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, but a declaration of divine wishes? About not apologizing for Geroge Bush's mandate as a prophet--not a humble petitioner--of God who can issue divine desires for the nation and the world.?

Everything America does comes from good intentions. Even the deaths of millions can be justified, because each one of those deaths--though regrettable--has made the world a better place so that the peace won afterwards--at least until the next necessary war is begun--will reign forever.





Hitler had good intentions, too. He wanted to unite Germany and make the nation feel strong and worthy again after the humiliation of the 1919 surrender terms at Versailles

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:PureeX

We owe them an apology for all of it. Though what good an apology would do without making amends is questionable. And how do we make amends for such an incredible blunder? How do we make amends for killing thousands and thousands of people based on lies?
Ask your terrorist friends. They can go first.

This is why Bush can't face his own cataclysmic mistake, and why most Americans would rather continue the killing than admit to themselves what we've really done.
:cow:

And this is why we're an embarrassment among nations, just as an individual that would behave this way is an embarrassment among men.

None of this is true, of course. Don't "you people" ever get tired of shilling for the terrorists?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::aikido:7

What about not apologizing for the United States being the divine city on the hill which can decide that "freedom" is the right of every person and the future of every nation, and that the liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, but a declaration of divine wishes? About not apologizing for Geroge Bush's mandate as a prophet--not a humble petitioner--of God who can issue divine desires for the nation and the world.?
:cow: Commie shill.

Everything America does comes from good intentions. Even the deaths of millions can be justified, because each one of those deaths--though regrettable--has made the world a better place so that the peace won afterwards--at least until the next necessary war is begun--will reign forever.
:kookoo:

Hitler had good intentions, too. He wanted to unite Germany and make the nation feel strong and worthy again after the humiliation of the 1919 surrender terms at Versailles
Oh, boy! There's the ol' Hitler comparison again. :yawn:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Compliments of Frank Ernest:
[Author unknown - sentiment shared]


For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre. Right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity and immorality of the government that ordered such actions.

I heard some Arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.). The LAST time that Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was for an unnecessary and immoral invasion and occupation of a country the was not a threat. Bush's order has resulted in the unnecessary and immoral deaths of over 1300 of our brave troops, as well as tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11. I'm sorry that Bush has not apologized for the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs. I'm sorry, but making the obvious point that all of the 9/11 terrorists were Arabs simply reinforces the hatred of Arabs in general. This is harmful, not helpful in fighting terrorism.

I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth. I'm sorry that Bush thinks it is OK to solve the problem of squalor by unnecessarily and immorally slaughtering tens of thousands of men, women and children to overthrow a dictator, who was not a threat. There were better and more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools. I'm sorry that some of their hatred of the U.S. is understandable, considering the actions the U.S. has taken against their people. But all terrorist acts are unacceptable, even when they are perpetrated by the U.S. government. I also hate the fact the Bush unnecessarily and immoral killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq. Hatred toward America would dramatically decrease if Bush and his neocon buddies apologized for their atrocities.

I am sorry that Yassir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and hijacked the Palestinian "cause." I'm sorry that Israel and the Bush administration do not care about the Palestinian cause.

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians. I'm sorry that you are wrong. Arab countries have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Palestinians. For example, after a short search, I found that, in 2002, Saudi Arabia gave Palestinians over $2 billion.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA. The U.S. has not been a very big contributor to Palestinians. "Palestinians benefit from $70 million a year in U.S. aid through U.N. refugee assistance programs, as well as about $75 million administered to water, housing, employment, and democracy programs." http://www.terrorismanswers.com/policy/foreignaid2.html

I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this. I'm sorry that our own right-wing elite and right-wing media can't understand the truth. They are encouraging a faith-based support of the Bush righties, as opposed to a reality-based understanding.

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered. I'm sorry that you falsely imply that the UN as a whole "scammed" Iraq.

"No one has questioned the commitment or the integrity or the impact of the United Nations humanitarian efforts," he said in response to a question on the Oil-for-Food allegations. "That has not even been a matter in dispute."

The White House website, he pointed out, has UNICEF and the overall UN relief effort on its list of charities that are reliable. "So there is absolutely no dispute about that as far as I know across the political spectrum in America," he said.

Mr. Dujarric (UN spokesperson) pointed out that the Oil-for-Food programme "did fulfil its main objective by providing humanitarian relief to 27 million Iraqis and thereby helping to maintain political support for the sanctions which, in turn, prevented Saddam Hussein's regime from acquiring weapons of mass destruction." http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13001&Cr=iraq&Cr1=oil&Kw1=Oil%2Dfor%2DFood&Kw2=&Kw3=

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death. So am I. At least you used the word "some."

I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins. I can't seem to find one here on Earth. An example of what can happen when people believe in fairy tales and superstitions.

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target. So am I. I'm also sorry that Bush thought that the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children were considered a legitimate consequence of invading a country that was not a threat.

I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs. I'm sorry that our brave troops died unnecessarily and immorally in Iraq, along with the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, who were only freed of their lives. Any alleged "freedom" the Iraqi people might acquire as a result of Bush's unnecessary and immoral invasion will NOT justify the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group. Since March 2003, Bush is responsible for the deaths of more Iraqi people than are Muslim extremists.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. Thanks to Bush.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. (Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones) I'm sorry you think that our troops need to kill more people who are fighting an invading and occupying force that unnecessarily and immorally killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, beginning in March 2003.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site". I'm sorry that Bush and company refer to the majority of Iraqis fighting the invading and occupying U.S. as "terrorists" (who are the minority).

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites. I'm sorry that Bush and company continue to falsely implicate Iraq with 9/11.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, etc. Arab countries gave their condolences. Only al-Qaeda was responsible. Only al-Qaeda should apologize.

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa. I'm sorry George Bush is our President.

I am sorry the French are french? I'm sorry the U.S. government didn't listen to the French, before unnecessarily and immorally invading Iraq. Oh, ... did I mention that the invasion unnecessarily and immorally killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see. The real masterminds behind the abuses have not been punished. The real masterminds behind Bush's unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq have not been punished.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Our troops were trying to kill some of these prisoners, most of whom where merely trying to repel an invading and occupying force. Many of the tortured prisoners had not been charged with fighting Americans.

Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Tortured.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins. You'll come around to seeing the truth, eventually.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Broken Record [Skeptic]

:blabla:....skip...... :blabla:....skip......:blabla:....skip...... :blabla:....skip......:blabla:....skip...... :blabla:....skip......:blabla:....skip......:blabl a:....skip...... :blabla:....skip...... :blabla:....skip......:blabla:....skip...... :blabla:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Broken Record [Skeptic] I only repeat what is likely the case, based on the evidence.

Bush, his buddies and followers remain "on message" by repeating the same lies over, and over, and over, and over, and .......

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I only repeat what is likely the case, based on the evidence.

No, you repeat the demo-commie/Michael Moore talking points...over...and over... and over......and over....and over.....



:blabla:


:yawn:

[keypurr]

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by keypurr

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.

So..... you are saying that if a person is going to kill you, it is wrong to kill him first?

[firechyld]

100 000 civilians at last count, peeps. Not tens of thousands.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by keypurr

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.
Tell that to God who demanded that murderers, adulterers, homosexuals and many more, be killed for their crimes.

[aikido7]

100 000 civilians at last count, peeps. Not tens of thousands.


Some would call "100,000" tens of thousands because it is made up of 100 groups of 10,000.









Then again, when it comes to math I'm not exactly a mental giant, either.

[firechyld]

"tens of thousands" just sounds smaller.

By that argument, hundreds of people live in the US.

*grin*

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by aikido7

Then again, when it comes to math I'm not exactly a mental giant, either.
Nor in any other thing.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Right thinking Americans...........

:darwinsm:

Skeptic,

You're arrogance is almost sickening. :down:

Wait a second.....it is sickening. :vomit:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by aikido7
I'm not exactly a mental giant.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:keypurr

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.
How about three?

All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.
Enjoy your burger. Would you like fries with that?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::aikido:7

Some would call "100,000" tens of thousands because it is made up of 100 groups of 10,000.

Then again, when it comes to math I'm not exactly a mental giant, either.
:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

I'm going to self-actualize some internalizations here. Regards to :zakath:.

:mock::skeptic: "right-thinking Americans" (a group from which he excluded himself)
:mock::aikido:7 "... not exactly a mental giant." (The Truth is finally out!)
:mock: keypurr "There has to be a better way to peace." (There is. It's called Superior Firepower.)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

So..... you are saying that if a person is going to kill you, it is wrong to kill him first? If someone is going to kill me, I will first try to do whatever I can to find other ways to stop that person or otherwise avoid being killed. Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

Saddam was NOT about to kill Americans (i.e. he was not a threat). Bush had NO clear hard pre-invasion evidence that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat, which is what would constitute "a person is going to kill you," as opposed to "a person might someday in the future develop the capacity to kill you, IF the U.S. and the world allow him the opportunity to develop such a capacity, which is unlikely."

Bush had plenty of time to find other more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam. If Bush had take the time, he might have avoided the unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

[Skeptic]

Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

Do you think Jesus would agree with this? Or do you think Jesus would have preferred that people, as a FIRST resort, simply kill whoever is trying to kill them?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

If someone is going to kill me, I will first try to do whatever I can to find other ways to stop that person or otherwise avoid being killed.

Thereby giving him more time to kill you.

Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

It should be the first resort.



Saddam was NOT about to kill Americans (i.e. he was not a threat).

That's not what John Kerry said.

Bush had NO clear hard pre-invasion evidence that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat, which is what would constitute "a person is going to kill you," as opposed to "a person might someday in the future develop the capacity to kill you, IF the U.S. and the world allow him the opportunity to develop such a capacity, which is unlikely."

Saddam was a terrorist.



Bush had plenty of time to find other more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam. If Bush had take the time, he might have avoided the unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

Saddam was given 12 years to comply, he refused. 12 years was more than enough time, Bush did the right thing.

[Rolf Ernst]

BILLYBOB--you are really in fine form on this one!

[BillyBob]

Thanks! :banana:

[aikido7]

BILLYBOB--you are really in fine form on this one!

Take it from me--he's got the snappy comebacks. I just notice he has nothing to say about Skeptic's remarks concerning Jesus.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

Good. Unfortunately, your killer had no such compunctions and killed you while you were still sorting thru your options. Now your family is at his mercy, which doesn't sound very good considering how much he just showed you.

Do you think Jesus would agree with this?

No, I think He would think you're an idiot. In fact, I know He thinks you're an idiot.

Or do you think Jesus would have preferred that people, as a FIRST resort, simply kill whoever is trying to kill them?

I don't think He would hold it against you for taking the life of someone who was trying to take yours. Why would He?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I don't think He would hold it against you for taking the life of someone who was trying to take yours. Even if there were other nonlethal first-resort options, which would make killing the person a last resort?

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by aikido7

Take it from me--he's got the snappy comebacks. I just notice he has nothing to say about Skeptic's remarks concerning Jesus. That's because BB doesn't post theologically. It's a known fact.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Even if there were other nonlethal first-resort options, which would make killing the person a last resort?

Skeptic, don't be an idiot. When somebody's trying to take your life, you've pretty much reached the last resort.

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Skeptic, don't be an idiot. When somebody's trying to take your life, you've pretty much reached the last resort. This is true.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Skeptic, don't be an idiot.
Riiiight. That'll happen.:rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Skeptic, don't be an idiot. When somebody's trying to take your life, you've pretty much reached the last resort. Just because someone is trying to take your life, it does not logically follow that there is no other way to prevent them from succeeding except killing them first.

Was invading Iraq a last resort? Was Saddam such a grave and imminent threat that there were no other options for dealing with him but invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process?

[PureX]

Originally posted by Skeptic Just because someone is trying to take your life, it does not logically follow that there is no other way to prevent them from succeeding except killing them first.

Was invading Iraq a last resort? Was Saddam such a grave and imminent threat that there were no other options for dealing with him but invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process? The whole point of being an absolutist is to pretend that the world and it's problems are all very simple. That's why absolutism always leads to extremism - to eliminate having to recon with complexity, the absolutist simply views everything in polar extremes. That way he can imagine that no matter what problem or circumstance he's looking at, it'll always appear as simple as 'this' or 'that'.

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

This is why absolutists can't see any other solution to a problem or a threat but overwhelming force and total anihilation. In fact, if you watch these threads for a while, you'll see that basically killing people is the absolutist's preferred solution to almost everything. To consider anything else causes them to have to confront life's complexity and ambiguity. And they both fear and hate complexity and ambiguity so much that they'd basically rather just propose killing people.

And sadly, one of these absolutists is now our president.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:PureeX

The whole point of being an absolutist is to pretend that the world and it's problems are all very simple. That's why absolutism always leads to extremism - to eliminate having to recon with complexity, the absolutist simply views everything in polar extremes. That way he can imagine that no matter what problem or circumstance he's looking at, it'll always appear as simple as 'this' or 'that'.
By the time you've "reconned the complexity", you're either dead or enslaved.

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.
:yawn: Lie-beral screed.

This is why absolutists can't see any other solution to a problem or a threat but overwhelming force and total inihilation. In fact, if you watch these threads for a while, you'll see that basically killing people is the absolutist's preferred solution to almost everything. To consider anything else causes them to have to confront life's complexity and ambiguity. And they both fear and hate complexity and ambiguity so much that they'd basically rather just propose killing people.
:yawn: Simplistic and stupid lie-beral screed.

And sadly, one of these absolutists is now our president.
YEAH!! :thumb:

[dotcom]

Originally posted by PureX

The whole point of being an absolutist is to pretend that the world and it's problems are all very simple. That's why absolutism always leads to extremism - to eliminate having to recon with complexity, the absolutist simply views everything in polar extremes. That way he can imagine that no matter what problem or circumstance he's looking at, it'll always appear as simple as 'this' or 'that'.

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

This is why absolutists can't see any other solution to a problem or a threat but overwhelming force and total anihilation. In fact, if you watch these threads for a while, you'll see that basically killing people is the absolutist's preferred solution to almost everything. To consider anything else causes them to have to confront life's complexity and ambiguity. And they both fear and hate complexity and ambiguity so much that they'd basically rather just propose killing people.

And sadly, one of these absolutists is now our president.

Were the 9/11 terrorists absolutists?

[PureX]

Skeptic,

You'll notice that because these absolutists can't deal with anything complex, their only response to the posts that offend them is this sort of idiotic name-calling and irrational drivel. They can't actually address the issue, because real issues tend to be complicated and to have various viable points of view. So the only way they have of expressing their negative emotions toward this complexity (remember that they are emotionally driven) is to spit irrational insults at those who dare to expose the complexity of life to them, and their inability/unwillingness to deal with it.

In the Bush's case, he can't go around spitting irrational insults at people who dare to contradict his extremist oversimplifications of reality, so he "punishes" them in other ways. When news people ask him questions that expose his aversion to the complexities of tort reform, for example, he has their access to him and the white house barred. When other nation's leaders questioned his blinding over-simplification of the "danger in Iraq" he began cutting off our dealings with them as a form of retribution. Being driven by emotion, absolutists often become very petty and spiteful in their behavior, and George Bush is well known for having a very egosistical vindictive streak, just as he is also well known for rewarding those who support his extremist views of reality.

It's a sad time in America.

[PureX]

Originally posted by dotcom Were the 9/11 terrorists absolutists? Yes, they are a perfect example of the extremism of absolutists - particularly of religious absolutists. The only solution they can see to any problem is "kill it".

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by PureX

It's a sad time in America. You don't have to stay.

[dotcom]

Originally posted by PureX

Yes, they are a perfect example of the extremism of absolutists - particularly of religious absolutists. The only solution they can see to any problem is "kill it".

OK, now identify the complexity both the terrorists and Bush were/was trying to avoid respectively.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Skeptic, don't be an idiot. When somebody's trying to take your life, you've pretty much reached the last resort.

POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=659232#post659232) :thumb:

[PureX]

Originally posted by dotcom OK, now identify the complexity both the terrorists and Bush were/was trying to avoid respectively. The terrorists divide all humanity up into the righteous and the unrighteous because they are absolutists, and absolutists view everything through opposite extremes. They imagine that they are the righteous ones, of course, and so anyone who would disagree with their religious conception of righteousness is perceived to be 'at war' with them. As absolutists, they can allow for only one "right way" and that way is their way, so anyone who would dare to embrace another way will automatically be embracing the "wrong way", or in religious extremist's terms, they must be embracing/promoting evil. Thus they see themselves as the only righteous human beings on Earth, and everyone else as an infidel. And not only is everyone else an infidel, but all infidels are the enemies of righteousness, and therefor are God's enemies, and their enemies.

Since they preceive themselves to be at war with all infidels, and since the only solution to war is to anihilate, by violence, the "enemy", that's what they intend to do.

Interestingly enough, George Bush views his own position in very much the same way. He believes that he and those who support him are the only truly righteous ones on Earth (the "born again" Christians) - appointed by God to "fight the evildoers", and that anyone who would disagree with him is likewise an infidel (he would call them "unbelievers", I suppose) who is working either wittingly or unwittingly for satan. Thus, they would be the an "enemy" of God, and so their enemy, too. And the only solution an absolutist has for dealing with enemies is to anihilate them. Bush can't kill everyone he perceives to be an enemy as the terrorists might, but he eliminates them from 'his world' as he is able.

The complexity that both these examples of absolutists deny is that "righteousness" is relative. And because it's relative, it's also ambiguous. It's difficult to be sure that we're "right" when we understand that what appears right from one person's perspective may appear very wrong from another's perspective in any given circumstance. Recognizing this would mean that to try and determine our own righteousness in any given situation would mean that we'd have to try and view the situation from the perspective of the other people involved, and not just from our own. And then we'd be forced to see that we're probably not going to be "right" from every perspective and some of those perspectives will be as valid as our own. We'll end up having to compromise and do the best we can given the specific conditions leaving our feeling of "righteousness" in a somewhat ambiguous position. And in fact this is how it will be for us most of the time and it's this ambiguity that the absolutists can't abide.

Bush attacked Saddam basically only because he perceived Saddam as his enemy and he understands only one way of dealing with enemies. The 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Iraq but this was irrelevant to Bush. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction but this too was irrelevant to Bush. They were just excuses Bush used to get the american people to let him do what he was absolutely convinced was right. The possibility that he (Bush) could have been "wrong" is inconceivable to Bush because Bush has already been convinced by his absolutist religious dogma that he is one of the "righteous ones" and is therefor an extension of God's will in this world. God can't make mistakes, and so neither can Bush as he's doing God's will. This is his "logic". It's the same "logic" that the terrorist's used to justify flying planes into the WTC, but neither can see this because neither of them can view theor own actions through the eyes of others, and neither want to. To do so would render their "righteousness" ambiguous. It would render their own perspectives subjective and relative. And they can't accept that.

The whole point of absolutism is to presume one's self to be absolutely right and anyone who disagree with you to be absolutely wrong. And this is what falls apart when we begin to recognize the relativism of our limited human perspectives. This is what the complexity of reality does to us, it makes us have to confront the relative and limited nature of our human perspective on existence. In the real world, we don't get to be "right". We only get to be as right as we can be given our limited understanding of what's right and our limited ability to indulge it, which means that we're very likely to be wrong even when we think we're right. And this is what's so unsettling to absolutists. They'd rather anihilate other human beings than admit to themselves that they might be wrong even when they think they're right. They'd rather anihilate other human beings than take the time to consider the circumstances from those other people's perspective. Their own imagined righteousness is far more important to them than the existence or well-being of other people. And this selfishness is reflected in their behavior.

[dotcom]

Originally posted by PureX

The terrorists divide all humanity up into the righteous and the unrighteous because they are absolutists, and absolutists view everything through opposite extremes. They imagine that they are the righteous ones, of course, and so anyone who would disagree with their religious conception of righteousness is perceived to be 'at war' with them. As absolutists, they can allow for only one "right way" and that way is their way, so anyone who would dare to embrace another way will automatically be embracing the "wrong way", or in religious extremist's terms, they must be embracing/promoting evil. Thus they see themselves as the only righteous human beings on Earth, and everyone else as an infidel. And not only is everyone else an infidel, but all infidels are the enemies of righteousness, and therefor are God's enemies, and their enemies.

Since they preceive themselves to be at war with all infidels, and since the only solution to war is to anihilate, by violence, the "enemy", that's what they intend to do.

Interestingly enough, George Bush views his own position in very much the same way. He believes that he and those who support him are the only truly righteous ones on Earth (the "born again" Christians) - appointed by God to "fight the evildoers", and that anyone who would disagree with him is likewise an infidel (he would call them "unbelievers", I suppose) who is working either wittingly or unwittingly for satan. Thus, they would be the an "enemy" of God, and so their enemy, too. And the only solution an absolutist has for dealing with enemies is to anihilate them. Bush can't kill everyone he perceives to be an enemy as the terrorists might, but he eliminates them from 'his world' as he is able.

The complexity that both these examples of absolutists deny is that "righteousness" is relative. And because it's relative, it's also ambiguous. It's difficult to be sure that we're "right" when we understand that what appears right from one person's perspective may appear very wrong from another's perspective in any given circumstance. Recognizing this would mean that to try and determine our own righteousness in any given situation would mean that we'd have to try and view the situation from the perspective of the other people involved, and not just from our own. And then we'd be forced to see that we're probably not going to be "right" from every perspective and some of those perspectives will be as valid as our own. We'll end up having to compromise and do the best we can given the specific conditions leaving our feeling of "righteousness" in a somewhat ambiguous position. And in fact this is how it will be for us most of the time and it's this ambiguity that the absolutists can't abide.

Bush attacked Saddam basically only because he perceived Saddam as his enemy and he understands only one way of dealing with enemies. The 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Iraq but this was irrelevant to Bush. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction but this too was irrelevant to Bush. They were just excuses Bush used to get the american people to let him do what he was absolutely convinced was right. The possibility that he (Bush) could have been "wrong" is inconceivable to Bush because Bush has already been convinced by his absolutist religious dogma that he is one of the "righteous ones" and is therefor an extension of God's will in this world. God can't make mistakes, and so neither can Bush as he's doing God's will. This is his "logic". It's the same "logic" that the terrorist's used to justify flying planes into the WTC, but neither can see this because neither of them can view theor own actions through the eyes of others, and neither want to. To do so would render their "righteousness" ambiguous. It would render their own perspectives subjective and relative. And they can't accept that.

The whole point of absolutism is to presume one's self to be absolutely right and anyone who disagree with you to be absolutely wrong. And this is what falls apart when we begin to recognize the relativism of our limited human perspectives. This is what the complexity of reality does to us, it makes us have to confront the relative and limited nature of our human perspective on existence. In the real world, we don't get to be "right". We only get to be as right as we can be given our limited understanding of what's right and our limited ability to indulge it, which means that we're very likely to be wrong even when we think we're right. And this is what's so unsettling to absolutists. They'd rather anihilate other human beings than admit to themselves that they might be wrong even when they think they're right. They'd rather anihilate other human beings than take the time to consider the circumstances from those other people's perspective. Their own imagined righteousness is far more important to them than the existence or well-being of other people. And this selfishness is reflected in their behavior.

That was quick!
So what you PureX can quickly identify MUST be ambiguous and complex for the absolutists. Would that be a correct inference? I am asking you whether in your opinion what you have just explained was complex for you. Or was it simple?

[PureX]

Originally posted by dotcom

That was quick!
So what you PureX can quickly identify MUST be ambiguous and complex for the absolutists. Would that be a correct inference? I am asking you whether in your opinion what you have just explained was complex for you. Or was it simple? Why don't you address the ideas presented in the post instead of asking these silly baiting question? Is it that you can't refute them, or just couldn't understand them?

[dotcom]

Originally posted by PureX

Why don't you address the ideas presented in the post instead of asking these silly baiting question? Is it that you can't refute them, or just couldn't understand them?

Here is your statement that I found irrational:

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

If you want to talk about absolutism, talk about absolutism, but don't think it such a complex issue only non-Bush supporters can understand. You are just full of hot air wasting time with useless semantics. If PureX can figure it out, anybody can figure it out. Don't claim complexity where there is none.

[PureX]

Originally posted by dotcom

Here is your statement that I found irrational:

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

If you want to talk about absolutism, talk about absolutism, but don't think it such a complex issue only non-Bush supporters can understand. You are just full of hot air wasting time with useless semantics. If PureX can figure it out, anybody can figure it out. Don't claim complexity where there is none. The problem with your objection is that you seem to have imagined that I claimed these people are stupid, and so are unable to handle complexity. This is not the case. They aren't too stupid to address the complexity of life, they're willfully ignorant, and so refuse to address it. They prefer to pretend that life is absurdly simple by viewing it only through polar extremes. This makes them feel smart and strong and decisive without having to address the confusion and ambiguity that comes with the complicated reality of life.

I get a kick out of watching Bush on TV - after repeating for the thousanth time about how Saddam was and evil-doer and the terrorists are evil-doers too because they refuse to accept Bush and the american way as their divinely appointed saviors he always says: "see?" as if he were explaining some very clever bit of insight to a slow-minded child. He really believes that he can see through the clutter of imaginary complexity to the simple truth of the matter. It's absurd, of course, but Bush is an absolutist. In his world everything is about the good-doers and evil-doers. Saddam = bad. Bush = good. That's all there is to it .... "see?"

hahaha

[dotcom]

Originally posted by PureX

The problem with your objection is that you seem to have imagined that I claimed these people are stupid, and so are unable to handle complexity. This is not the case. They aren't too stupid to address the complexity of life, they're willfully ignorant, and so refuse to address it. They prefer to pretend that life is absurdly simple by viewing it only through polar extremes. This makes them feel smart and strong and decisive without having to address the confusion and ambiguity that comes with the complicated reality of life.

I get a kick out of watching Bush on TV - after repeating for the thousanth time about how Saddam was and evil-doer and the terrorists are evil-doers too because they refuse to accept Bush and the american way as their divinely appointed saviors he always says: "see?" as if he were explaining some very clever bit of insight to a slow-minded child. He really believes that he can see through the clutter of imaginary complexity to the simple truth of the matter. It's absurd, of course, but Bush is an absolutist. In his world everything is about the good-doers and evil-doers. Saddam = bad. Bush = good. That's all there is to it .... "see?"

hahaha

Liberal view of absolutism.

http://cscwww.cats.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/absoluti.htm

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Just because someone is trying to take your life, it does not logically follow that there is no other way to prevent them from succeeding except killing them first.

That's the surest way. I've never heard of a dead person committing murder. Have you?

Was invading Iraq a last resort?

Yes. Saddam could have met the UN resolutions, or failing that, he could have stepped down when he was given the chance. He didn't do either, so we went in and took him down just like we said we would.

Was Saddam such a grave and imminent threat that there were no other options for dealing with him but invading Iraq

We've been trying other options for years, and they simply didn't work. Allowing him to remain in power presented too much of a threat to our allies in the region, and inflicted too many hardships on the people of Iraq. Removing him from power was the best option, and really the only one left.

and killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process?

I'm not aware of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children being killed in our invasion of Iraq. Did people just start slaughtering their families when they heard we were coming in, or what?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by PureX

The whole point of being an absolutist is to pretend that the world and it's problems are all very simple. That's why absolutism always leads to extremism - to eliminate having to recon with complexity, the absolutist simply views everything in polar extremes. That way he can imagine that no matter what problem or circumstance he's looking at, it'll always appear as simple as 'this' or 'that'.

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

This is why absolutists can't see any other solution to a problem or a threat but overwhelming force and total anihilation. In fact, if you watch these threads for a while, you'll see that basically killing people is the absolutist's preferred solution to almost everything. To consider anything else causes them to have to confront life's complexity and ambiguity. And they both fear and hate complexity and ambiguity so much that they'd basically rather just propose killing people.

And sadly, one of these absolutists is now our president. Good points! Well said! :thumb:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by PureX

Skeptic,

You'll notice that because these absolutists can't deal with anything complex, their only response to the posts that offend them is this sort of idiotic name-calling and irrational drivel. Yes. They prefer to demonize the messenger, rather than rationally address the message.

They can't actually address the issue, because real issues tend to be complicated and to have various viable points of view. So the only way they have of expressing their negative emotions toward this complexity (remember that they are emotionally driven) is to spit irrational insults at those who dare to expose the complexity of life to them, and their inability/unwillingness to deal with it. So I've noticed.

In the Bush's case, he can't go around spitting irrational insults at people who dare to contradict his extremist oversimplifications of reality, so he "punishes" them in other ways. When news people ask him questions that expose his aversion to the complexities of tort reform, for example, he has their access to him and the white house barred. When other nation's leaders questioned his blinding over-simplification of the "danger in Iraq" he began cutting off our dealings with them as a form of retribution. Being driven by emotion, absolutists often become very petty and spiteful in their behavior, and George Bush is well known for having a very egosistical vindictive streak, just as he is also well known for rewarding those who support his extremist views of reality.

It's a sad time in America. Indeed! :noid:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by PureX

Yes, they are a perfect example of the extremism of absolutists - particularly of religious absolutists. The only solution they can see to any problem is "kill it". The current war between Muslim extremist absolutists and Right-wing Christian absolutists (fundies and the Bush Administration) can only result in an endless battle, just like what has been happening for years between Israel and the Palestinians.

Since absolutism is irrational, I feel that, unless absolutists give up their absolutism, there is little hope for progress. Perhaps the best we can do is try to unite the voices of reason in the hope that they will someday be heard.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by dotcom

OK, now identify the complexity both the terrorists and Bush were/was trying to avoid respectively. What? Have you not been reading "commie" posts for the past few years? If you had, you would have some sense of the complex issues at hand.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

What? Have you not been reading "commie" posts for the past few years? If you had, you would have some sense of the complex issues at hand.

Translation: "I have no idea, I just keep repeating the demo-commie talking points hoping I won't actually have to explain them"

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Yes. Saddam could have met the UN resolutions, or failing that, he could have stepped down when he was given the chance. He didn't do either, so we went in and took him down just like we said we would. Just because Saddam had not previously met UN resolutions, it does not follow that would continue to do so. In fact, Saddam was complying with such resolutions in the months leading up to March 2003. Just because Saddam didn't step down from power when Bush asked him to, it does not follow that there was no other ways to eventually remove him from power. Bush's invasion was unnecessary and immoral.

We've been trying other options for years, and they simply didn't work. We DID NOT exhaust our options by any means.

Allowing him to remain in power presented too much of a threat to our allies in the region, and inflicted too many hardships on the people of Iraq. Saddam was NOT a threat. And there is no clear hard evidence that shows otherwise. One does NOT invade a country, killing thousands of innocent people in the process, because of hardships a dictator inflicts on his people. If Saddam had been in the middle of mass exterminations, in March 2003, this would have been a different story. Saddam was boxed in and monitored 24/7. He was unlikely to pull such crap.

Removing him from power was the best option, and really the only one left. As most people now agree, invading Iraq was HARDLY the best option! And it was FAR from the only option left.

I'm not aware of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children being killed in our invasion of Iraq. Did people just start slaughtering their families when they heard we were coming in, or what? How many innocent men, women and children do you think really died during and since Bush's invasion of March 2003?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Just because Saddam had not previously met UN resolutions, it does not follow that would continue to do so.


:darwinsm:


My sides are hurting, that was hilarious!

[BillyBob]

Thanks for the laugh, Skeptic! :darwinsm:

::still laughing::

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[drbrumley]

Question, if the United States had sactions placed upon us, would we not break them?

If so, why?

If not,why?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Question, if the United States had sactions placed upon us, would we not break them?

If so, why?

Of course we would break them. Screw the rest of the world, we are the LONE SUPERPOWER!

WE DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO ANYBODY! :banana:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Of course we would break them. Screw the rest of the world, we are the LONE SUPERPOWER!

WE DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO ANYBODY! :banana:

Thank you for the straightforward answer. So Iraq doesn't have that right that we have? No SOVERIGN nation can break the sanctions unless it is the United States?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Thank you for the straightforward answer. So Iraq doesn't have that right that we have?

They have no rights at all, unless they can defend and maintain them.

No SOVERIGN nation can break the sanctions unless it is the United States?

Any sovereign nation can break sanctions if it has the military stregnth to do so. Saddam gambled and lost. So is the way of the world.

Are you suggesting we have Global Laws that the US should submit to?

[drbrumley]

Global laws? Of course not. That infringes upon the right of EVERY nation.

EVEN IRAQ!

So I submit to you, that the United Nations has no juristidiction in any nations affairs, whether they are weak or powerful. And if the United Nations cant be allowed to sanction us, then the United Nations cant sanction anyone.

Iraq pre Kuwait, had our blessing and approval to do what they did. Let me quote the ambassodor to Iraq in the transcript to a meeting held with Saddam Hussein:

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

And if I may, your reasoning begs the question. If we can do whatever we so please when it comes to other nations and the world body of the U.N., what did Iraq do that was so different from us? Nothing. Kuwait was infringing on the borders, everyone knows this, including Bush 1 and he gave tasit approval. Until the U.N. freaked out, nothing was going to be done. As our ambassodor said and rightfully so..... "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

It is pretty self evident where the facts take us and the facts take us we had NO business over there in the first place.

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by elected4ever

BB, I'm surprised. you have a might makes right attitude. England had an embargo on us and the French broke that embargo and we became a nation. You are much worse than a communist. You are a globalists neo con and I don't care if you get angry. I will refrain from further comment as anything else I might say is for worse than what I have already said.

Can I have a civilized discussion without all the negativity for once?

[drbrumley]

OEJ says

Saddam could have met the UN resolutions, or failing that, he could have stepped down when he was given the chance. He didn't do either, so we went in and took him down just like we said we would.

Who gave us that right?

[PureX]

Originally posted by Skeptic

The current war between Muslim extremist absolutists and Right-wing Christian absolutists (fundies and the Bush Administration) can only result in an endless battle, just like what has been happening for years between Israel and the Palestinians.

Since absolutism is irrational, I feel that, unless absolutists give up their absolutism, there is little hope for progress. Perhaps the best we can do is try to unite the voices of reason in the hope that they will someday be heard. Yes, the attacks happening in Iraq are not going to stop, now, until we leave. And we aren't going to leave until they stop, because that would make us look like losers. So the Iraqi absolutists (insurgents) and the american absolutists (Bush conservatives) are now locked in battle by their own willful ignorance, costing many lives and billions of dollars and with no end in sight.

Basically what's going to happen is that the Bush administration will have to tell ever more outrageous lies about how Iraq has been "freed from tyrany" until they can begin to pull out while pretending that they have succeeded. Meanwhile the anti-american forces in Iraq will claim that they have "beat" the americans and will try to use their "victory" to gain them popular influence and ultimately political control of Iraq. And they may well succeed. But by then all the participants in this fiasco will be retired from public office, and will just ignore the incredible damage they've done through their willful ignorance and hubris. And the american people will be paying for this mess for decades to come. No one will think about the many thousands that have died, except those who knew and loved them personally.

[elected4ever]

I deleted the last post that I made at the request of doc. I do not apologize for my indignation at those who flaunt the US Constitution and treat it as though it were toilet paper. I Have no respect for communist, neocons, liberals or progressives. I believe you all are enemies of this country and of the constitution whether you are citizens or not.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by elected4ever

BB, I'm surprised. you have a might makes right attitude.

Why? That is the only way to enforce your will?

England had an embargo on us and the French broke that embargo and we became a nation.

Yep, we became mightier than England!

You are much worse than a communist.

I can't wait to hear your explanation of this...:rolleyes:

You are a globalists

You are a liar, I am anything BUT a globalist.

neo con

I'm not Jewish,

and I don't care if you get angry.

Obviously.

I will refrain from further comment as anything else I might say is for worse than what I have already said.

Why stop now, you've already demonstrated a total incomprehension of reality, why not go for the gusto?

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Why? That is the only way to enforce your will? Why is it necessary to enforce our will. Defense and aggression are two different things.



Yep, we became mightier than England! How is that when we pay tribute to the English.



I can't wait to hear your explanation of this...:rolleyes: How is overtly destroying a nation from within in order to justify global expansion.



You are a liar, I am anything BUT a globalist.How am I a lier. It is not me who has their sights set on world domination. If you don't believe me read GW's inaugural speech but this time think about what he is saying.



I'm not Jewish, Never said you were. What has that got to do with being a neocon?


Why stop now, you've already demonstrated a total incomprehension of reality, why not go for the gusto? I am not the one falling for the propaganda and defending it. I understand it and have to deal with it but I am not fooled by it. Doc gave you an example of the neocon thinking by quoteing Henry Hide and you flipped him off. So you must agree with them.

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by elected4ever

How am I a lier. No, no, no....he called you a "liar."

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by elected4ever

Why is it necessary to enforce our will. Defense and aggression are two different things.

Saddam was a terrorist, removing him from power was a defensive move.




How am I a lier. It is not me who has their sights set on world domination. If you don't believe me read GW's inaugural speech but this time think about what he is saying.

Spreading democracy does not equate to world domination. However, world wide democracies are in our own best interest, simply because democracies are much less likely to wage war, dictatorships are much more likely to wage war.



Never said you were. What has that got to do with being a neocon?

Being Jewish is on of the riquirements of a 'neocon'.



I am not the one falling for the propaganda and defending it. I understand it and have to deal with it but I am not fooled by it. Doc gave you an example of the neocon thinking by quoteing Henry Hide and you flipped him off. So you must agree with them.

I flipped off Doc because he started his post exclaiming that I don't care about the Constitution.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Saddam was a terrorist, removing him from power was a defensive move. Then why was it necessary to by-pass the constitution? Saddam was not a treat to the US. He was a treat to his neighbors. I don't see his neighbors doing anything but obstructing.





Spreading democracy does not equate to world domination. However, world wide democracies are in our own best interest, simply because democracies are much less likely to wage war, dictatorships are much more likely to wage war. I would not walk across the street to spread democracy. Democracy is a code word for socialism. According to Bush, he will do what ever it takes to spared socialism. There is no liberty or freedom in lawless societies especially the minorities of that society. Democracies are oppressive in nature and unstable. God favors monarchies. That makes God a despot I suppose.



Being Jewish is on of the requirements of a 'neocon'. Not to any definition that I have heard. Anyone in favor of the New world order is a neocon. That don't have to be Jewish





I flipped off Doc because he started his post exclaiming that I don't care about the Constitution. You don't. Your actions prove it. If I am wrong prove me wrong.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Thank you for the straightforward answer. So Iraq doesn't have that right that we have? No SOVERIGN nation can break the sanctions unless it is the United States?

We are not discussing rights, we are not discussing sanctions against the United States. International relations are not a matter of some misguided view of moral parity, much as you would like to imply it so.

We are dealing with sovereign nations. Saddam Hussein amassed a 14-year track record of violating the sanctions which were imposed upon him by other sovereign nations. Saddam's ability to withstand or defeat those sanctions were based upon his power to do so, not some chimerous "right" to do so.

Let's get real, doctor. A sovereign nation exists because of its ability to defend its territory and sovereignty. A nation exists because of the forebearance of other sovereign nations. The rules imposed by other sovereign nations against a sovereign nation are effective only if the rules imposed can be enforced. Enforcement can come about through compliance, diplomacy, and/or force of arms.

With Saddam Hussein compliance was never an issue, diplomacy failed and the United States, and others, resorted to armed force. That's the way of the world, like it or lump it.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by elected4ever


Then why was it necessary to by-pass the constitution?

Congress approved our action in Iraq.

Saddam was not a treat to the US. He was a treat to his neighbors. I don't see his neighbors doing anything but obstructing.

Saddam was threat to the entire western civilizastion, he was a terrorist.





I would not walk across the street to spread democracy.

Nobody is asking you to.

Democracy is a code word for socialism. According to Bush, he will do what ever it takes to spared socialism.

:darwinsm:

There is no liberty or freedom in lawless societies especially the minorities of that society. Democracies are oppressive in nature and unstable. God favors monarchies. That makes God a despot I suppose.

:darwinsm:



Not to any definition that I have heard. Anyone in favor of the New world order is a neocon. That don't have to be Jewish

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)) is a page with quite a few in depth definitions of neocon. After reading it, you will conclude that the term has absolutely no definitive meaning.





You don't. Your actions prove it. If I am wrong prove me wrong.

:wave2:

Oh, there's that pesky smilie again....how many fingers is he holding up this time?

[BillyBob]

Criticism of term Neoconservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)#Criticism_of_term)

The term was coined by socialist Michael Harrington, who wanted a way to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right – people he had been deriding as "socialists for Nixon."

Many of the men and women to whom the neoconservative label is applied reject it as artificial and too abstract. The fact that its use has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:

Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as meaningless label, saying:

[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles – both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not.

Other "traditional" conservatives (e.g., Jonah Goldberg) have rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative." Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistant use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are often identified as leading "neocons" despite the fact that both men have been life-long conservative Republicans. Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism.

Other traditional conservatives are likewise skeptical of the contemporary usage term, and may dislike being associated with the stereotypes, or even the supposed agendas of the "neocons." Conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."

[PureX]

The term "neo-conservative" only means "new conservative". It is used today in america to differentiate between the old (past) political conservative platform, and those who believed in it, and a new politically conservative platform that has been emerging since Reagan. There are some similarities, of course, but there are also some striking differences. And it's these striking differences that have made the term "neo-conservative" so necessary and functuonal.

It's a proper term, and in most cases today it's being used properly.

[BillyBob]

It's a meaningless term because there is no consensus for its definition. The demo-commies love to throw the term around because they think it has a derogatory meaning, but they just end up looking stupid, as usual.

[PureX]

Originally posted by BillyBob It's a meaningless term because there is no consensus for its definition. The demo-commies love to throw the term around because they think it has a derogatory meaning, but they just end up looking stupid, as usual. Conservatives themselves use the term. You're only objecting to it because you know full well that it has some derogatory implications. One of the most prominant characteristics of the neo-cons is that they are extremely aggressive, so much so that they will do most anything to facilitate their own agenda, not the least of which is lying. They sanction and even promote violence as a viable method of furthering their agenda, and they have no respect for the rights or desires of other people or nations. They worship power, and they believe the ability to use force automatically justifies the decision to do so. "Might makes us right" could be their motto. I've seen you promote this nonsense yourself, and if you don't like the way makes you look, then that's your own problem, isn't it. Don't try and blame what you are on what it's called.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by PureX

Conservatives themselves use the term.

So?

You're only objecting to it because you know full well that it has some derogatory implications.

I don't think it's derogatory at all, but as I have clearly demonstrated, there is no consensus as to the word's definition.

One of the most prominant characteristics of the neo-cons is that they are extremely aggressive, so much so that they will do most anything to facilitate their own agenda, not the least of which is lying. They sanction and even promote violence as a viable method of furthering their agenda, and they have no respect for the rights or desires of other people or nations. They worship power, and they believe the ability to use force automatically justifies the decision to do so. "Might makes us right" could be their motto. I've seen you promote this nonsense yourself, and if you don't like the way makes you look, then that's your own problem, isn't it. Don't try and blame what you are on what it's called.

:yawn:

Go read the links I provided, then get back to us....

[dotcom]

Originally posted by PureX

Conservatives themselves use the term. You're only objecting to it because you know full well that it has some derogatory implications. One of the most prominant characteristics of the neo-cons is that they are extremely aggressive, so much so that they will do most anything to facilitate their own agenda, not the least of which is lying. They sanction and even promote violence as a viable method of furthering their agenda, and they have no respect for the rights or desires of other people or nations. They worship power, and they believe the ability to use force automatically justifies the decision to do so. "Might makes us right" could be their motto. I've seen you promote this nonsense yourself, and if you don't like the way makes you look, then that's your own problem, isn't it. Don't try and blame what you are on what it's called.

Constructive dialogue set aside, why are you seething in anger? It is just a discussion.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by dotcom

Constructive dialogue set aside, why are you seething in anger? It is just a discussion.


Liberals are very reactionary. They live in the world of 'feelings' and 'emotions', not the world of thought and logic. That explains their policies and the method of pandering their leaders prefer.

[PureX]

Originally posted by dotcom Constructive dialogue set aside, why are you seething in anger? It is just a discussion. I'm not "seething in anger" at all. These "new conservatives" are extremely aggressive. They are dishonest in pursuit of their agenda. They do promote violence as the means to their ends. They do believe that "might makes right". And these attitudes are distinctly different than the attitudes of conservatives of days past. Don't blame the words, or the people using them, just because you don't like what they mean.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by PureeX

I'm not "seething in anger" at all. These "new conservatives" are extremely aggressive. They are dishonest in pursuit of their agenda. They do promote violence as the means to their ends. They do believe that "might makes right". And these attitudes are distinctly different than the attitudes of conservatives of days past. Don't blame the words, or the people using them, just because you don't like what they mean.

Gee! Looks like "new conservative" = commie.

The again, lie-berals always accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they are doing.

[Jackielabby]

Jeez, how on earth does one not fall into the 'commie' category in FE's eyes?

[Jackielabby]

Almost half the population of the USA must be 'commie'!!

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Almost half the population of the USA must be 'commie'!!

Exactly!

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Jeez, how on earth does one not fall into the 'commie' category in FE's eyes? By not being a commie.

[Frank Ernest]

Yes, Indeed, Mr. 5020! :thumb:

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Jeez, how on earth does one not fall into the 'commie' category in FE's eyes? 1. By not challenging the policies of the Bush neocons. One word of descent and you become a commie to BB and the rest of the illiterate neocon supporters. 2. being a commie and supporting communist like the Dems and Rep. do.:crackup:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::e4e:

1. By not challenging the policies of the Bush neocons. One word of descent and you become a commie to BB and the rest of the illiterate neocon supporters. 2. being a commie and supporting communist like the Dems and Rep. do.:crackup:
:darwinsm: You are challenging :aikido:7's preeminence for posting simplistic stupidities.

[One Eyed Jack]

I dunno. I think aikido7 has some of the stupidest posts I've ever read around here, but at least he can spell. I generally skip over e4e's posts because I don't feel like deciphering them.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I dunno. I think aikido7 has some of the stupidest posts I've ever read around here, but at least he can spell. I generally skip over e4e's posts because I don't feel like deciphering them. I hardly read yours at all . You usually have nothing useful to say.:p

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by elected4ever

I hardly read yours at all . You usually have nothing useful to say.:p

You read that last one.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

You read that last one. I said hardly. I never said never:rolleyes:

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by elected4ever

I said hardly. I never said never:rolleyes:

It's not like it really matters to me anyway. If you want to prejudge my posts as having no value, then knock yourself out.

[dotcom]

Originally posted by PureX

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

PureX,

I read your post again and thouhjt the lieberal Dems are so out-of-touch with reality they will never get it.

Here is what Anthony Stahelski of Central Washington University says about obsession of Dems with intellectuals:

" Unfortunately for Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently dominated by activists and financial contributors who think that intellectuals make good presidents. Consequently potential Democratic candidates who have the common touch and are perceived as non-intellectuals are eliminated in the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton was the perfect Democratic candidate because he had the intellectual credentials to appeal to the activists that dominate the primaries and he had the common touch to be successful in the general election. However, candidates who have both sets of attributes are rare. If the Democratic Party wants to elect more presidents, Democrats may have to give up their love affair with intellectuals."

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by elected4ever

1. By not challenging the policies of the Bush neocons. One word of descent and you become a commie to BB

That's not true. :nono:

and the rest of the illiterate neocon supporters.

I'm illiterate???? :confused:

[PureX]

Originally posted by dotcom PureX,

I read your post again and thouhjt the lieberal Dems are so out-of-touch with reality they will never get it.Yeah, how could they not know that D students with resentments against smart people make the best presidents?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by PureX

Yeah, how could they not know that D students with resentments against smart people make the best presidents?

If you ask me, they make the best democrats.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

It's not like it really matters to me anyway. If you want to prejudge my posts as having no value, then knock yourself out. You prejudged me as not knowing anything because of my spelling.. I never could spell well. That doesn't make me stupid. Some of the best spellers in the world are stupid people.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by elected4ever

You prejudged me as not knowing anything because of my spelling..

Where did I do that? I simply said that I generally skip over your posts because I didn't feel like deciphering them. That's not making any judgements concerning the quality of your ideas. I simply find them hard to read.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Where did I do that? I simply said that I generally skip over your posts because I didn't feel like deciphering them. That's not making any judgments concerning the quality of your ideas. I simply find them hard to read. I will try to do better and its my misunderstanding of your intent.

[One Eyed Jack]

No sweat.

[dotcom]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

If you ask me, they make the best democrats.

That's the truth.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

If you ask me, they make the best democrats.

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Saddam was a terrorist, removing him from power was a defensive move. :darwinsm: Saddam was not a threat. There was no pre-invasion and is no post-invasion hard evidence that suggests otherwise. Even if you make the stretch that Saddam was a "terrorist," not all "terrorist" dictators need to be overthrown by an invasion that unnecessarily and immorally kills tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children!

Terrorism has been with us for a very long time. It will continue to be with us for a very long time. No "war on terrorism" will EVER be won! This does not mean that terrorism should not be fought. We should ALSO fight terrorism when it is perpetrated by the United States! Trying to fight terrorism by overthrowing dictators or low-level "terrorists" that are not a threat by invading sovereign nations, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process, not only does NOT help the fight against terrorism, it actually HURTS the fight. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a prime example!!

Invading Iraq was not a "defensive move." Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies KNEW that Iraq was not a threat for the following reasons:

1. They knew that they destroyed most of Iraq's military infrastructure back during the first Gulf War. They knew that Saddam's military was no match for the U.S.

2. They knew that Iraq's WMDs and WMD programs had been destroyed back in the early 1990s.

3. They knew that Iraq did not have the resources or capability to reconstitute it's demolished WMD programs, as long as the sanctions and monitoring was in place.

4. They knew that they had their military thumb on Saddam's back. Remember the "No-Fly" zones? Iraq was surrounded by U.S. and international military forces.

5. They knew that Iraq was monitored 24/7 by U.S. forces and the international community, and that Saddam was not able to make viable threats to the U.S. or other nations.

6. They knew that the UN weapons inspectors were doing their job in Iraq, prior to the invasion, and had found ZERO WMDs or active WMD programs.

7. They knew that the so-called "intelligence" they had received from Iraqi exiles had ZERO basis in empirical evidence. They knew that all they were being fed was hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations.

8. They knew they had ZERO hard evidence of any real or significant ties between Saddam and 9/11, despite the Bush Administration's rhetoric to the contrary.

9. They knew they had ZERO hard evidence of any real or significant ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda, despite the Bush Administration's rhetoric to the contrary.

10. They knew that invading Iraq would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children.

11. They knew that they could pull off such an invasion, after having hoodwinked a majority of the Republican-controlled Congress and a majority of the American public.

12. They knew that the Right-wing media moguls would support their invasion, and that the fear of being labeled "unpatriotic," which might have depressed their "bottom line," would be sufficient to suppress most anti-war dissent in the general news media.

13. Most of all, they knew that they would not have bothered to put such military power into overthrowing a dictator, who was not a threat, unless Iraq had among the greatest oil resources on the planet.

Spreading democracy does not equate to world domination. Spreading it at the point of a gun defeats the purpose of democracy.

However, world wide democracies are in our own best interest, simply because democracies are much less likely to wage war, dictatorships are much more likely to wage war. No county, including the self-righteous U.S., has a right to wage war, and kill thousands of innocent men, women and children, in order to overthrow dictatorships that are not a threat, or to impose what we think of as "democracy" on other nations.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

A sovereign nation exists because of its ability to defend its territory and sovereignty. In your Right-wing militaristic world view.

A nation exists because of the forebearance of other sovereign nations. In your Right-wing militaristic world view.

The rules imposed by other sovereign nations against a soverei