Well boo hoo hoo, Russ wants to go after me for saying that conservatives are the biggest problem in this country. He correctly says I want those pictures published. That is correct, but not right away. We need a diplomatic effort to integrate common interests with the MUSLIM PEOPLES living in subjugation under horrifying “governments.” Afterward, we should publish and prosecute the perpetrators son they are recognized as the criminals we had in the previous mal-administration. He says this will endanger the troops!
This shows how moronic the conservatives/Republicans are. Endanger the troops? A position bereft of a scintilla of logic, nothing and this is simple. IF THESE MENTAL MIDGETS HAD REALLY BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT ENDANGERING OUR TROOPS, THEY WOULDN’T HAVE SENT TROOPS TO A WAR CREATED OUT OF NOTHING!! Why is this so incomprehensible? Are they so stuck on stupid/party/ideology/myth, that truth becomes a philosophical enemy? But wait there’s more!
After they sent the troops into danger in the first place, why did they indulge themselves in techniques designed to produce false confessions, and under this peculiar thing called LAW, illegal in this country, and by extension under the Geneva Convention abroad by representatives of this country, including Dept. of State, CIA/intelligence and the Pentagon/military? Take it all in. These monsters are no different than Ted Bundy defending himself. Some may disagree because they feel thatBush/Cheney and Co. deserve special consideration. Any furthur consideration should be one that is AGGRAVATING in terms of what they should face since Bush/Cheney and Co. were in positions of public trust. Ted Bundy was not in that position. If the truth reveals reasons for prosecution and penalty for even treason or war crimes then so be it. Lastly…
Even though most conservatives/Republicans and some who call themselves “liberal” can only see politics through a bipartisan concept, I want to remind them that I ran for office as a DC Statehood Green! Most liberals I know can count past 2. What in the heck is wrong with the DNA responsible for the development of intelligence in Conservative/Republicans?
Conservatives;
Created this idiot/base/vile/criminal/optional war of the absurd in Iraq to win the presidency in 2004.
Sent thousands of honorable troops following orders to death.
Indulged themselves in tortuous policies to justify their actions.
Handed the American people and economy plundered, pilfered and rotten with non-productive greed.
Turned American values into the butt of humiliating jokes and derision by the educated part of the world.
Given America an international reputation of being fundamentally stupid, murderous, paranoid, chaotic, obese, mean spirited and disloyal to any ideals since it is seen that those “LEADERS” were disloyal to the Constitution and American ideals parroted for the world’s ears.
So what would any thinking person expect when reviewing these “gifts?” This country needs these types of conservatives like we need bubonic plague. Consider what conservatives have done to other countries, even their own. History is full of the results of war, famine, pestilence, murders and holocaust; almost all conservative deeds. Prosecute, cleanse (liberal cleansing isn’t the indulgent murder of Milosovic, but it is publicly humiliating as it should be next to the photos of drunk drivers and post office photos) and purge. Eat, spend and work locally. This country can do better.
Dear Mr Troy
You writing is really bad, so bad I’m truly embarrassed for you. And I’m surprised and disappointed that editor Michael Conniff—given his past willingness to engage in content censorship on his radio show—has allowed you to regularly use his website as a sort of back alley in which to upchuck (after pizza and lots of beer), without at least some editing of you on his part. After all, the job of an editor is to edit. There outta be a law.
Mr Troy, never, never, never shake a baby and for crying out loud, never use bluster and stridency as substitutes for thoughtful writing. (I’m assuming, although I don’t know why, that you have the intellectual wherewithal to make the adjustment.) Or is the “liberal gladiator” just a punch-drunk Palooka?
Sir, during my short and relatively unremarkable life on terra firma, I have ghost edited two books and co-edited a third (Colorado Rivers and Creeks). Out of respect for you and your potential readers, I would be pleased and honored if you would consider my editing any of your writings before they are published. Think about it.
And so it is. And all of the Roaring Fork Valley rejoyced.
Your pen pal,
Mike
Mike,
When I go back through and read what I wrote it always reads fine for me. I read over every typo, missing word, and everything else that would make my writing unreadable to anyone else. It’s only when I read something a day late, or wait long enough to forget what I wrote, before I can ever notice all the errors my writing. Something I have found that really has help me is… to lighten up. This is a blog. A blog is more of a conversation than literature. Isn’t the content more important than the presentation? Though I do have to give you some props Mike. Your writing is always at least framed nicely. “never, never, never shake a baby and for crying out loud” clever as always.
Ed,
I’ve always wondered one thing about the liberal stance on war. How can you support troops but not support a war?
Mike–You can attack Ed’s ideas if you like, but avoid intimating Mr. Troy should stand closer to an Editor. This strikes me as the sort of unwarranted bluster that completely avoids Ed’s arguments.
Ed’s central premise–that the Iraq war was “CREATED OUT OF NOTHING”–is ripe for refutation, but instead you attack Ed’s prose? Sadly, where this unfortunate premise is concerned, your comment does the heavy lifting.
Cheers,
Nathan, you wrote: “I’ve always wondered one thing about the liberal stance on war. How can you support troops but not support a war?”
“Troops” are people. I support people; their lives, their rights, their freedom. War is inherently anti-people. The whole object of war is to kill, maim, displace, and destroy people.
But soldiers who obey commands are not to blame for the atrocities of war. The leaders who send them into harm’s way, or command them to wreak havoc on innocent civilian populations are the real criminals. Therefore I support the troops, but I don’t support war.
Whatever the reason for their enlistment; money, education, the desire to protect America…our troops deserve respect and support. However that doesn’t mean we have to support the war itself. Corrupt leaders have misused our military for their own purposes. Why should I support that? Why should I support an illegal and immoral war that uses our “troops” as cannon fodder to promote a sinister agenda?
At the flagpole ceremony on Mondays at Carbondale’s Town Hall, when I read the names of soldiers who’ve died in Iraq and Afghanistan, I leave out their military rank because I wish to remember those soldiers as people, with the name they were given by their parents when they came into this world, not as pawns of the military-industrial complex.
Sue, I know you’re not a pacifist, but I don’t think you’ve ever made clear the conditions under which war is acceptable.
I’ve heard Michael hold up Afghanistan as an acceptable theater of war because Afghanistan contains many members of al Qaeda–an arguably stateless organization. Notwithstanding the fact that the list of al Qaeda and quasi-al Qaeda terrorists killed in Iraq is long, Michael nevertheless regards this distinction sufficient.
Under what conditions is it acceptable to marshal the “pawns of the military-industrial complex?”
Cheers,
It is NEVER acceptable to invade and wage war on another country, I don’t care how many “bad guys” might be lurking there.
The U.S. military’s sole purpose should be for protecting and defending OUR OWN people from attack and/or invasion by another country’s military, not for policing the world’s bad guys, or for “securing our interests,” or defending Iraqi freedom, or ANY OTHER reason whatsoever.
Our soldiers enlisted to defend our nation and people. This is why I respect our troops, but not their mission since we were in no danger of attack or invasion by a foreign enemy.
The only goal of war is to subjugate another people in order to control their land and resources. Wars have ALWAYS been waged for profit. And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are no exception.
But our misbegotten wars aside, I challenge anyone to find a single instance in all of recorded human history when a war has been started for altruistic reasons.
If I read you correctly, the war in Afghanistan was as unwarranted as the war in Iraq. By your standard, the only acceptable militaristic posture is a strictly defensive one. In a purely turn-the-other-cheek kind of way, this may disqualify any pacifist bona fides…
You define war as as the subjugation of other people for the purpose of controlling land and resource, and, ostensibly, wealth. Did you arrive at this definition through your own studies and contemplation?
Many may consider this blasphemy to America, but I’ll bear that responsibility.
As far as my own ideology goes, I try not to pass judgment or persecute anyone because I can never know anyone else’s intensions. Intentions are the only true measure to judge by because within our intension lies our will. But I do want to explain something that America has blurred through its patriotic propaganda.
Despite the common ideology about freedom, America has nothing to do with it. Freedom was given by God and in no way can it be token away. God gave us free will which is the only real freedom. We contribute freedom to America because of the abundance of opportunities with so little persecution. But no matter who you are, where you live, or even when you live, God gives you freedom. Whether the reaction of our will is sharp, direct, light, postponed, or anything else, it is still our will leading our lives. We persecute leader for deceiving, but knowledge is own responsibility. Choices are each individuals alone. This is why I can assure you that freedom never came from the barrel of a gun nor by the tip of a sword. American lays no more claim on freedom than anywhere else in the world. And as far as the abundance of opportunity goes, it came from education, not soldiers or laws.
Bravery is not a good virtue in itself; it only becomes a virtue through wisdom. Just because someone is willing to give up their life for cause doesn‘t mean they’re heroic. Or you would have to admit that the highjackers were heroic. When considering anything, but especially taking another life, a person is responsible for coming up with the moral decision for himself. If a person is deceived into taking another life, they must bear the responsibility of it. I know, you think that if someone is given false knowledge or shown false evidence then blame should falls squarely on the deceiver. Yes, deceit bears its own responsibility, but all the knowledge needed to make a moral decision lies within. No one can falsify your heart.
I have been told that soldiers have died for me, but I never have ask anyone to die or kill for me. I would die myself before asking someone to do such a thing. I have also been asked what I think a moral decision is when it comes to the protection of my loved ones. It is morally right to protect every life, but this never includes killing. Instead find honorable solutions. Try simply educating or any other of many means available that avoids using persecution. Jesus, Gandhi, M.L.K. those are the true soldiers who fought without ever taking a life.
I live in the real world, where persecution leads to anger, even if you think the persecution is justified. So as much a war seems to be a solution, it never has solved anything. The world will always have hate, but why feed it? What if our reaction to violence is love? What would then propel hate? Love, knowledge, and forgiveness are not just the moral attributes to strive for, but they also are the best solutions to the world problems.
Sue, Even though I’m apparently a lot more radical then you, Ron Paul would be proud.
Nathan,
I like your way of thinking and agree with most of it. But Mitch is right, I’m no pacifist. A mother bear will kill to protect her offspring and so will I. If it comes down to choosing to preserve the life of a murderous thug or my child or grandchild, there is no question or doubt in my mind.
It would be nice to believe that love and forgiveness can overcome hate and violence, but alas that is not always the case. On a personal level, sometimes violence is necessary to save your own or another innocent person’s life. There’s no shame in self defense.
On the national level, unless you are fending off a marauding army, war is never justified. America has never engaged in a war of self-defense. It’s always been a choice to go somewhere else in the world and fight for some nebulous cause. Our leaders pump up the people with patriotism and nationalism and tell us the enemy is going to take away our freedom and the stupid masses believe them and cry for blood with animalistic fervor. Who gets hurt? Rarely the enemy we are supposedly hunting down. Innocent civilians are the main victims and our soldiers lives are wasted in the effort. Meanwhile the weapons manufacturers, oil magnates, and politicians increase their wealth and power.
Mitch, you wrote: “You define war as the subjugation of other people for the purpose of controlling land and resource, and, ostensibly, wealth. Did you arrive at this definition through your own studies and contemplation?”
Yes, I did. But it didn’t really take very much effort to come to that conclusion. Just take any war in recorded history and look at who started it and why. In every case, it’s pretty easy to see that the aggressor nation was after something that the victim nation possessed. And in every case, the people were encouraged to fight by their leaders instilling fear and hatred of “the enemy,” regardless of whether there was ever any real threat.
Several hundred years ago the Kings of England and other European heads were constantly engaging in wars with each other to gain land, wealth and power, at the expense of their people’s lives and the national treasure. That was why our founding fathers eschewed a standing army and set up obstacles to the U.S. president having the sole power to declare war at his (or her) whim.
It might be hard to assess the harsh reality behind America’s current wars at this point, but a few hundred years from now, we will be looked upon as a greedy and violent aggressor no different than any other tyrannical imperialist nation in history.
[it didn’t really take very much effort to come to that conclusion.]
Thank you for your honesty. I’m glad it was easy for you.
I appreciate your argument based on English History, a subject I once studied. I’m not sure that time translates to ours as well as you think it does.
Cheers,
Unlike you, I’m not college educated. I never even gave a thought to the causes and consequences of war until 9/11. Needless to say I had a lot of catching up to do to get up to speed on world and American history. But thanks to the internet and a lot of free time, I now know more than I ever wanted to about imperialism, colonialism, and human folly.
I’d be interested to hear your educated views on wars past and present. Surely you don’t think the U.S. is any different than other domineering tribes throughout history.
From your learned perspective, has war ever brought anything but misery to the people and wealth to the rulers?
I think that war, as measured in human life, is always unwarranted, a clearer argument for pacifism.
[has war ever brought anything but misery to the people and wealth to the rulers?]
Yes, it has. And we both know that.
Really? I know nothing of the sort, please elaborate!
There was a largely incidental battle that lead to the inception of this country. I forget what it’s called. And then there is this really freakish thing about black slaves that got resolved in the late 1860s. And then there’s this really controversial subject of a holocaust in Europe in the 1940s.
Free advice: When you wake up to piss in the middle of the night, walk downhill before you unzip.
You’re kidding right? I thought everyone pretty well understood that the Revolution was a bid by wealthy American landowners to wrest power from the King of England. Many people suffered and died as a result and the wealthy landowners became the power elite of this country.
The Civil War was a bid by wealthy landowners to keep their slaves; an integral part of their plantation operation. Meanwhile Abe Lincoln was appeasing the northern businessmen who didn’t want to lose the very lucrative Southern agricultural operations which were the basis of their wealth. The North and South could simply have agreed to disagree and gone their separate ways. Instead they chose to fight over the land and its resources. Many people suffered for that decision, and while some lost their wealth, others increased theirs.
The Holocaust was a result of Hitler’s desire to invade and occupy other nations in order to control the resources of Europe and amass great wealth. Many people suffered for that war while a few increased their wealth and power.
Come on, surely you can do better than that! I guess that advice comes from personal experience?
Gandhi believed that everything including World War 2 could have been solved without violence, but it always takes personal sacrifice. I never speak about national policy because nations are made of individuals. Hitler didn’t kill all those people; people “just following orders” did. We like to just blame leaders, but they have no power unless each individual give it to them. Until we understand that, we will continue not being able to understand things like soldier depression and suicides. No one is ever dealing with the troops who are coming home and have to face their own guilt. “Just following orders” may work in public, but we all have a conscience and bear our own responsibilities.
War does have alternatives. The only reason everyone think love and non-violence isn’t an option is because it’s painful and we have come up with this delusion of “evil” people. Evil people don’t exist, people exist. We use this ignorant term to explain away problems so we don’t have try and actually understand them. People make terrible and revengeful decision, but don’t worry just like you they can justify them. All of those who we claims are evil could justify theirown actions. Why else would their own countries have followed them? Unless violence is taken off the table as an option, people will justify the use of it. “Whoever shall live by the sword, shall die by the sword.”
So Nathan, you make no distinction between violence in a self-defense situation and aggressive violence? You think if a man was about to rape and murder my granddaughter I should react with love and forgiveness? That’s going to stop him? Or am I just supposed to allow it rather than justify taking another’s life? Let’s be real here.
Were Gandhi or MLK ever in a situation where a loved one was threatened, I’ll bet non-violence would’ve gone right out the window. Both of them advocated non-violence as a reaction to oppression and occupation, not confronting a violent intruder, rapist, murderer.
I agree there are no evil people. I personally don’t believe in the concept of evil. There is only compliance with the social contract and non-compliance. People aren’t good or evil, people’s actions are.
As far as “just following orders” are concerned, if there were no orders issued in the first place, there would be no atrocities committed. Our soldiers didn’t decide for themselves to go blow the shit out of Iraq and Afghansitan. They did it on orders. The Nazis didn’t come up with the plan to exterminate the Jews, Hitler did. A few bad apples CAN spoil the whole bunch.
Your Utopian ideal of a world without war and violence is no doubt appealing, but completely unrealistic. We’re only animals after all. Shall all violence on planet earth cease when humans embrace pacifism? Are you expecting the lion to lay down with the lamb?
The world is a violent place. To be at peace with oneself and the world, one must accept the Yin Yang of existence. Without war and violence, we cannot choose peace and non-violence. As a Libertarian, you understand the importance of personal choice. Maybe it would be nice if everyone chose peace and non-violence, but I’m sure you don’t want to take that choice away from any other human by “taking violence off the table.”
Sue,
If you don’t want to read another long rant of mine here is some quick responses at the top.
No, I make no distinction between hate and hate or fear and fear.
No one is perfect, but M.L.K. and Gandhi both showed love to their “enemies” even when they were killing their loved ones. Love is not easy.
Each person has his own will. You can always chose to go against someone’s orders, even if it come with consequences.
My “Utopian ideal” is possible for individuals. I don’t strive for peace. I strive for personal accountability and personal peace.
Although Libertarianism lines up closest to my views, I’m political for entertainment purposes only. I care about people, not governments. I want each individuals to make decisions for themselves.
You think I’m under the disillusion of world peace, but I am not a passivist. Just because I know that violence is not a solution don’t think don’t want to do anything. Love is something. In fact it is the most powerful weapon. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” that is from Jesus in whom you probably think was a passivist too. Gandhi and M.L.K. were not a passivist either. They stood in the face of their “wars” and had powerful impacts. Not only did all three give up their own lives, but always brought along many of their loved ones into the same fate. Did you know M.L.K. was protested by his own community when children died at the hands of racists. But he used the strength of love to defeat the barriers of segregation and also to suppress a growing movement of violent activist, the black panthers. Do you think he would have been so powerful is he gave into violence?
It is a troubling concept “loving your enemy” because it isn’t fair and doesn’t make sense unless you believe in God. If you don’t believe in God then there is no reason you shouldn’t believe in war of all kinds. This is all you have; hold onto every breath. If you can prosper from war then might as well get behind it and take it for all its got. What the hell do you care about the environment for then, it won’t effect you. It’s senseless to care about anyone else if upon your death and everyone else’s, we’ll all be left with nothing, not even an empty darkness.
However if you do believe in God then you know everything is fair. A short life on earth is not a punishment. If your granddaughter were to die in a car accident tomorrow then the grief would be for your loss, not hers. If God wants to give someone a longer time on earth then He will do it. If not, life is still fair. If someone is raping your granddaughter then try and stop them. Stand between them and take the punches and forgive them. Again people are not evil. Even a pedophile rapist is still a person making mistakes. Do you think rapist feels loved? What effect do you think showing love to a rapist would have on his life? I know most people don’t care about the rapist in this situation, but isn’t he the one who really needs help. If your granddaughter did get raped and you couldn’t help it, then she did nothing wrong. When she could come to terms with this and get over her hate, then their would be nothing stopping her from moving on with her life.
I’m not proposing a system of beliefs to add to some fairytale. Love is the best solution to all problems, but it takes sacrifices. I didn’t discover love through a good heart, I’m not that great of a person. I found love through logic. I would be killed before killing, not because I think that person is more deserving of life then me, but instead because that person needs life more then me. If someone kills me and knows that I forgive them, then love will magnify their guilt. Guilt is a good thing that helps us change. When you persecute people, instead of forgiving them, it allows them to focus on the persecution instead of guilt. Love is a practical way of solving problems, not a dream. Think of the most inspiring stories; I bet all of them involve someone loving in extreme circumstances and making a differance.
Sue-I appreciate your synthesis of American History. Surely the only thing more tortuous than concluding the catalyst of all war is old white men with lots of money is maintaining this hard-fought-for perspective with further study and contemplation of history.
Despite its simplicity, I find your view of these events harder to swallow than a shot of sawdust and a cobweb chaser. I guess that’s why you wrote “everyone pretty well” understands. Thanks for acknowledging the distorted ruminations of us less-enlightened huckleberries.
Cheers,
Nathan, don’t get me wrong. I believe in the power of love. In fact I believe there are only two powers at work in the universe; love and fear. I routinely choose love over fear. I don’t know if loving a murderous rapist will change his behavior though. I think killing him might do him more good. The poor bastard is obviously sick and miserable. Why not release his tortured soul and let God love and forgive him? Or for you Eastern Religionists; give him a chance to come back as a harmless little bunny.
Mitch, I guess you bought all that grammar school historical revision and patriotic everyman American hero stuff. Must be nice to think all of those wars were fought for good and true and noble reasons instead of simply for plunder.
I wish I had those rose-colored glasses you boys are looking through. I guess I’m just too much of a realist to see the past as romantically as you Mitch, or the future as idealistically as you Nathan. But hey, who am I to burst your unicorn and rainbow filled bubbles?
Dream on gentlemen, and may your dreams become our reality.
Sue,
[I guess you bought all that grammar school historical revision and patriotic everyman American hero stuff...]
I’m not sure your claim is merited, but what’s clear to me is that you missed the reading assignment in second-semester Russian History that described what the Bolsheviks did to the house of Romanov on the 17th of July, 1918.
Given your proclivity for blaming rich white guys for war, surely this historical event warrants an exception to your rule. Then again, I can hear your argument now: “Nikolai had it coming”–you know, as Tsar, he represented the legacy of the Kishinev pogrom…
Then again, what do I know? After all, according to you mine is merely a mental landscape of unicorns and rainbow bubbles…
Cheers,
I never blamed rich white guys for war. Those are your words. I blame the ruling class (or those who aspire to rule). War is the mechanism whereby the powerful plunder the weak. It can also be the mechanism for an exchange of power, as in the Bolshevik Revolution. Proletariats never instigate revolutions. The bourgeoisie are always behind them, urging them on “for the good of the people,” “democracy,” “freedom,” and such.
Let’s see, who became the head of the Soviet state after the fall of the house of Romanov? Oh yeah that Lenin guy, leader of the Bolsheviks. Not technically a rich white guy, but a bourgie lawyer with political aspirations. Again, the people suffered and the leaders got rich.
Thank you for making my point; it’s impossible to come up with a single example of a war that wasn’t started by someone craving power and wealth.
[Proletariats never instigate revolutions.]
Well then, there it is: an absolute to rival the rich white guys start all wars idea. Never let it be said you are a Trotskyite, a Marxist, nor a student of Russian history.
Cheers,
I may not be a student of Russian history (I rely on Wikipedia for that), but I am a student of human history and I can tell you…absolutely…that behind every peasant revolution there’s a guy craving wealth and power. He might even be white.
Read George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and you’ll get where I’m coming from. I don’t believe the pigs were white…but I could be wrong.
Wikipedia?
Since you’re there, look up the article on Permanent Revolution. It doesn’t do the subject justice, but it may lead you to further explore your view that “Proletariats never instigate revolution.”
Cheers,
I read Animal Farm a long time ago. More recently, I read Cattle Logic. With the exceptions of Connie Pilaf, Colwell, and Clowers, everyone else was white.
Cheers,
Most, if not all wars have greed in them, but that is not typically the underlining reason nations/ people go to war. When most people go to war they are truly fighting with the intentions of solving a problem. I can go through and break down justifications to some of the wars. Any war from Revolutionary to Iraq. But the thing you have to remember is that all wars have two sides and the “good” side doesn’t always win. Both sides typically have convincing agreements as to why they are fighting. No one is evil and nations are never filled with just idiots. Wars are fought with either mercenary or people who believe in the cause. Any war fought with just mercenaries is probably all about greed. On the other hand, true soldiers only fight for causes that they believe in.
Sue, you can either support a war and the soldiers who choose to fight it, or not support a war nor the soldiers who fight it. There is no in between except hypocrisy. I’m not into persecuting, but this whole war sucks but soldiers are heroes thing is ridicules. Soldier are the ones choosing to fight the war; the war would be nothing without them. At least Mitch is taking a side without hypocrisy. He supports the war and the troops making war. Which would make sense if war made sense.
Dear Mr. McGarry,
I recognize that in your world of English perfection and as always, updated as you are, the following is perfectly acceptable;
(And so it is. And all of the Roaring Fork Valley rejoyced.
Your pen pal,
Mike)
If you want to continue being an overpaid imbecile, making a living off “single issue advocacy,” without seeing your issue as an integral part of myriad problems, requiring something besides your simple minded silver bullet solution, then go ahead. You are a fraud, just as much as most single issue advocates, who refuse to see how their little pet problems fit in with a panapopoly of other problems, waiting for ideas that can solve many of those same problems. A pox on them too. The previous sentence is hopefully short enough for your attention span.
We have had company so I am just getting to this but seriously Mitch, I would like to get the refutation. After we entered and created the war in Iraq, Al Qaida and wannabees moved in but before then???
Certainly Saddam Hussein was a murderous thug and otherwise vicious dictator. I really believe it is silly to think he would have anything to do with Al Qaida. That would be like linking me to the KKK. This doesn’t mean I was against assassinating him, but a war??
Soldiers are doing a job that they are assigned. There are acts of heroism but the war is not heroic or honorable.
Sue, you can either support a war and the soldiers who choose to fight it, or not support a war nor the soldiers who fight it. There is no in between except hypocrisy. I’m not into persecuting, but this whole war sucks but soldiers are heroes thing is ridicules. Soldier are the ones choosing to fight the war; the war would be nothing without them. At least Mitch is taking a side without hypocrisy. He supports the war and the troops making war. Which would make sense if war made sense.
I support the troops and their lives. I do not support what they were asked to do in this situation. I don’t believe this is hypocracy. This war does not make sense. When good people are sent to a crap hole they still end up stinking. We, who are not there should accept that and be accepting of them when they come back. Many were duped into believing this war was a necessity.
I never said the soldiers are heroes. What’s with you guys putting words in my mouth? I’m not one of those who believes those soldiers are dying to protect American freedom. They are dying to put money in the pockets of Haliburton execs and others. That makes their deaths even more tragic. I honor their sacrifice because they are fulfilling their obligation to the U.S. military which they willingly signed up for and innocently believed would be a way to serve their country, or at least get a college education.
It would be pretty stupid to recruit soldiers for military service and then tell them that obeying orders is optional based on their conscience. The military only works if soldiers obey commands without question. Now if they want to file a formal complaint based on conscientious objection to the mission, fine. But we can’t have U.S. soldiers running all over the planet disobeying orders and following their own will. When the time came to really fight for our safety or freedom, whatever, to fight for something important, we don’t want a bunch of independent thinking guys and gals doing whatever they please. It would be chaos. Military service is serious stuff and only works when the soldiers are disciplined and dedicated.
Sue,
I think I finally understand you. You respect soldiers as people, not as soldiers. I agree with that. Though I should also say that if you are in support of having soldiers to protect America from invasion then I bet you think every country should have this right. If so then you would support Iraqi’s killing the invading Americans. My originally question was to the real liberal gladiator, but I always like hearing your opinion. Unless of course, I’m wrong about your opinion and you are a real Lib.
Edward,
Although it may come with consequences, a soldier always has a choice to say no. Not only could they refuse to kill, but they would actually be making a real difference with their sacrifice. Muhammad Ali made a similar sacrifice at the peak of his boxing career, now that’s heroic. Most of society would look at joining the military and then refusing to go to combat as cowardly, which might be the case. But if someone realizes that what they agreed to do was wrong and then refuses kill but faced the consequences, they would be a hero.
“Saddam Hussein was a murderous thug and otherwise vicious dictator.” When did you start hating Saddam? Was it the same time as the States or was it earlier, like when the State was supporting, publicly defending, and supplying Saddam as he carried out his war and the mass killing of his own population. I’m only asking that because before Saddam became a bad puppet, he was apart of the same strategy to keep us safe from the “evil” Muslims as our take over of Afghanistan. Although to be fair, if I lived in Iraq and was blinded by the same type of patriotism as Mitch is, I could justify Saddam. His invasion and mass killings at least had more relevancy then “He tried to kill my Daddy.”
It is a fact that Saddam and Osama were enemies with only the hate for America’s suppression in common. Al Qaida wasn’t prominent in Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t of allowed them and they had no reason to be there. They only came to kill Americans and to make a mockery of America.
[Mitch, I would like to get the refutation. After we entered and created the war in Iraq, Al Qaida and wannabees moved in but before then???]
Ed-I’ve stated my case before in this forum, based on my reading of The 9-11 Commission Report, al Qaeda “wannabes” not only existed in Iraq prior to U.S. military action, but prior to 9-11 as well. I’ve got a copy of the report on my hard disk and will gladly dredge up my references in that post.
Lacking that at the moment, download the report yourself and search for Hassan al-Turabi.
There you will find a connection, albeit tenuous, between bin Laden and Hussein. The popular argument is that Hussein, the functional secularist, despised the religious bin Laden, and that the age-old antagonism between the religious and the secular over-rode any real relationship between the two. There’s a kernal of truth in this, to be sure, but you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why Hussein embraced the opportunity to let bin Laden recruit along his northeast borders, especially if it meant stronger opposition to the Kurdish Peshmerga… by warriors who’d recently driven Russia out of Afghanistan.
Nathan said earlier there are no evil people. I’m not sure I agree with such a rosy assessment, but even I would embrace the idea if it seemed even half-plausible. That said, even in Nathan’s world, surely there is room for opportunists with really bad intentions.
Cheers,
Mitch,
You’re advancing the theory of Permanent Revolution as proof against my historical evidence? The problem with theories is that, well, they’re theoretical.
“The basic idea of Trotsky’s theory is that in Russia the bourgeoisie would not carry out a thorough revolution which would institute political democracy and solve the land question. These measures were assumed to be essential to develop Russia economically. Therefore it was argued the future revolution must be led by the proletariat who would not only carry through the tasks of the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution but would commence a struggle to surpass the bourgeois democratic revolution. How far the proletariat would be able to travel upon that road would depend upon the further course of events and not upon the designation of the revolution as “Bourgeois Democratic”. In this sense the revolution would be made permanent.”
But in reality, the proletariats are far too busy eking out a living to engage in political theory and revolutionary planning. The bourgeoisie have the time, the intelligence and the social conscience to instigate a movement. Their outrage over the unfairness of the current system then trickles down to the proletariats. Once the worker class are properly enraged and well on the march to overthrowing the system, all the middle class have to do is sit back and wait. The workers will carry out the task of removing the standing authority so that the gentry can step in and take over. Once that happens, the former socially conscious bourgeois democrat becomes drunk with power and wealth, abuses the new system to their advantage and the whole process starts all over again.
I’d say Russia/USSR has provided the perfect example of that age old phenomenon. Our own nation’s birth is another example. Who planned the revolution? Not the lowly sharecropper, tailor, or fisherman. It was the landed gentry who wanted to get rid of the authority above them so they could take over and create a new system that increased their own wealth and power. And who fought and died in that revolution? The peasants of course.
You wrote, “I read Animal Farm a long time ago. More recently, I read Cattle Logic. With the exceptions of Connie Pilaf, Colwell, and Clowers, everyone else was white.”
Interestingly, the Cattle Logic sequel features a new character who takes charge of Casa Blanca; Rock Amabo, who is black. Not all wars are instigated by rich white men as I’m sure many Africans can attest to. And as I’m sure your aware, not all wars have been instigated by men. But to reiterate my point; all wars have been instigated by “opportunists with bad intentions.”
Nathan,
You think that sometimes the people who plan the wars have good intentions and believe their cause to be noble and just. I say bull! The planners of wars have only greed and self-interest in mind. There’s no reason to go to war except to reap some personal benefit. That’s why Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex. Profit motivated wars are the only kind of war there is.
No one on this post has so far been able to prove otherwise, and the more they try, the more my point is born out.
Now to your statement; “if you are in support of having soldiers to protect America from invasion then I bet you think every country should have this right. If so then you would support Iraqi’s killing the invading Americans.”
I wouldn’t quite go so far as to say that I “support Iraqis killing Americans,” but yes, I believe every nation has a right to defend itself from invaders and occupiers whether by a standing army or civilian militia. As a Lib, I would forgo the army for the militia.
The real tragedy of the Iraq war is that American soldiers were sent to invade a sovereign country for a supposedly noble cause (as the war planners always frame it) and they have been put in the horrible position of killing people who are just trying to defend themselves from foreign occupation, just as our people would do if we were invaded. The soldiers lose, the Iraqis lose. Who wins? Those who planned the war…as always.
Sue,
How politically correct! You’d have us think the phrase “opportunists with really bad intentions” now serves as a more sensitive way of saying “pasty old white guys with lots of money.” It’s OK though. Those of use who read you with any regularity know exactly what you mean. Especially us pasty old white guys…
Cheers,
Hey p.o.w.g. Don’t start the revolution without me!
Wow!
And now you know why I’m calling for the EVOLUTION!
Sue, I don’t think anyone is evil or at least I know I can’t make a clear judgment on their intensions. What I do think is that they are making a poor decision sometimes based on reasons other then greed. A nation wouldn’t follow it’s leaders into war just for greed. And I know you think that leaders are just coming up with ways to mislead their people to carry out war, but that is mostly not true. Most leaders, just like most soldiers, believe in the causes that they are fighting for. Although their is no way to prove the leaders intensions to you, the circumstantial evidence is clear. If you don’t have the “turn the other cheek philosophy” then it is pretty easy to justify any war. I bet Hitler thought that he was doing the right thing until the end. The propaganda of “freedom” is used not as an evil campaign, but it is instead what leaders truly and ignorantly believe. I’m sure your one of those people who like to believe that the Iraq war was for oil, but that would be forgetting what our biggest Middle East hindrance is/was. The United States alliance with Israel makes it more difficult to have any relation in the Middle East than anything else I can see. But yet despite the easy fix of ending relations with Israel, the States endures these hardship for what they think is right. So although I don’t agree with war or the choice of killing, I can tell you that those leaders and soldiers are humans with a heart. Everyone needs to justify their own action to themselves, so guilt doesn’t eat them away.
Mitch, yes people have bad intension and I actually do believe that some choose to be evil. No one, but Him, can judge intension. We try to judge through actions but everyone disagreeing even in this conversation should surely show you that good intension can’t be judge by us. I don’t think your evil or have evil intension for supporting a war. As I just explained to Sue you actually think it’s the best plan of action. The biggest problem with good intension is it’s about the same as bravery; they both are only serve you well when they are paired with the wisdom of love. The only true good intensions are those that seek knowledge. If someone is acting on good but blind intension they might lock everyone away just to “save” the environment. War is the same thing, an act of bravery without wisdom. I believe God will deal with those of us who are evil minded. Seeking justice on earth is a never ending, ignorant process that causes more harm then good. This was why Jesus’ teachings are so revolutionary.
To answer;
“Saddam Hussein was a murderous thug and otherwise vicious dictator.” When did you start hating Saddam? Was it the same time as the States or was it earlier, like when the State was supporting, publicly defending, and supplying Saddam as he carried out his war and the mass killing of his own population. I’m only asking that because before Saddam became a bad puppet, he was apart of the same strategy to keep us safe from the “evil” Muslims as our take over of Afghanistan.
I was horrified that our government was giving him aid in the eighties. Iraq vs. Iraq; At the time I thought the ayatollah had an ideology of hate and Hussein had an ideology which seemed to be control by murder. The gassing of the Kurds while we stood by our gasp, friend Hussein convinced me that misgivings about his rise to power were well founded. Out side of Japan and Europe, this country’s friends were generally monsters, no one I could support based on honor or ethics.
I have been liberal for a long time, certainly not always a Democrat.
Sue,
you have no argument from me except that I would add power in front of wealth as the reasons for initiating war — all of them. The flower of youth sacrificed for a bunch of old weeds.
Ed Troy wrote (in part):
“Dear Mr. McGarry
If you want to continue being an overpaid imbecile, making a living off “single issue advocacy,” without seeing your issue as an integral part of myriad problems, requiring something besides your simple minded silver bullet solution, then go ahead. You are a fraud, just as much as most single issue advocates, who refuse to see how their little pet problems fit in with a panapopoly of other problems…”
First, I am very much underpaid.
Second, I don’t make a living on my advocacy. Wish I did.
Third, I don’t think of myself as an “imbecile,” although I did have to repeat Algebra in high school.
Fourth, in spite of my shortcomings, I do know how to spell “panoply,” and it isn’t, as you wrote, “panapopoly.”
Fifth, as for your suggestion that I am a single issue advocate, I defer to the unchallenged words of a former professor of mine, Albert Bartlett, “Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale,
from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”
Finally, I still have the banana cream pie ready to plant on you mug. Please give me a time, date and location for delivery–if you have the noive.
And so it is.
Your pen pal.
Mike
Mc Garry I am not a typist. I look at the letter keys and forgot to go back and check it out. I admit to sometimes forgetting when I type the keys, and that may be the flimsiest evidence to counter the panoply mispelling; but so it is. I do know how to spell in general very well.
“Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale,
from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced
by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”
If population had been stabilised at levels in the first millenium, perhaps Kepler, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Newton, Goethe, Jefferson, Edison, Fuller, Tesla, Einstein, D’Escarte, MLK, Salk and Gandhi, would not have been born and contributed. What genius of the future, with a vision possibly exceeding any of the aforementioned, would you care to sacrifice? Perhaps we should consider Bubonic plague, Hitler and Stalin positive environmental factors. Ready to sip the hemlock?
Sir, with all due respect, there are very few who know me that think, for even a second, that I have some fear of you. If you wanted to arm wrestle for a beer that is one thing, however I am not a willing participant in receiving a pie in the face with out the option to retaliate in kind.
Mitch,
when you say tenuous, you really were not kidding. This is incredibly weak. With Turabi’s history, a link with IRAN would actually have been much stronger, although still not very strong.
The one reference in the 9-11 commission report I found regarding a link from Al Qeada via Turabi to Iraq;
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
On the other hand;
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dpearl%2Bharbor%2Battack%2Buss%2Barizona&w=500&h=386&imgurl=www.sitnews.us%2F1206news%2F120706%2FJuneAllen%2Fuss_arizona.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sitnews.us%2F1206news%2F120706%2FJuneAllen%2F120706_pearl_harbor.html&size=25k&name=uss+arizona+jpg&p=pearl+harbor+attack+uss+arizona&oid=ebae305f19e019fe&fr2=&no=2&tt=752&sigr=128ijdost&sigi=11o7th1tj&sigb=12eo02sbp
and
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bHIW8hZKLpoALauJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBydDE2OGg2BHBvcwMxOARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANJMTEwXzEzMQ–/SIG=1k6v5sdpq/EXP=1243104150/**http%3A//images.search.yahoo.com/images/view%3Fback=http%253A%252F%252Fimages.search.yahoo.com%252Fsearch%252Fimages%253Fp%253Dsinking%252Bof%252Blusitania%2526ei%253DUTF-8%2526fr%253Dyfp-t-501%26w=500%26h=335%26imgurl=www.greatwardifferent.com%252FGreat_War%252FNaval%252FWar%252520Illustrated%252520Dluxe%252520-%252520vol%2525203%252520Lusitania%252520001.jpg%26rurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.greatwardifferent.com%252FGreat_War%252FNaval%252FLusitania_01.htm%26size=51k%26name=War%2BIllustrated%2B…%26p=sinking%2Bof%2Blusitania%26oid=aa483cb244ea54de%26fr2=%26no=18%26tt=356%26sigr=121u9t771%26sigi=137apqmjn%26sigb=12p1a0ll2
Appear to be better understood as reasons for going to war with whom we went to war with.
So when this happens;
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bDrP8hZKhX0AKDyJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBxNGR2bWdjBHBvcwM3BHNlYwNzcgR2dGlkA0kxMTBfMTMx/SIG=1l63hgruf/EXP=1243104335/**http%3A//images.search.yahoo.com/images/view%3Fback=http%253A%252F%252Fimages.search.yahoo.com%252Fsearch%252Fimages%253Fp%253D9-11%252Bimpact%252Bpictures%2526ei%253Dutf-8%2526y%253DSearch%2526fr%253Dyfp-t-501%26w=430%26h=287%26imgurl=static.flickr.com%252F1331%252F1361236028_32c08c0679.jpg%26rurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.flickr.com%252Fphotos%252Fonebigswede%252F1361236028%252F%26size=43k%26name=9%2B11%2BPlane%2BBefor…%26p=9-11%2Bimpact%2Bpictures%26oid=63be0748e064e3be%26fr2=%26fusr=onebigswede%26hurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.flickr.com%252Fphotos%252Fonebigswede%252F%26no=7%26tt=4912%26sigr=11k6qsgvp%26sigi=11gp8opir%26sigb=132tcmihv%26sigh=119mf149c
why would we attack Iraq, instead of going after those who claimed responsibility; Al Qaeda? There was a better case for Iran than Iraq via Turabi. It still doesn’t make sense from a national security viewpoint, even for simple revenge.
Dear Mr. Troy:
You wrote, ” I am not a typist. I look at the letter keys and forgot to go back and check it out. I admit to sometimes forgetting when I type the keys…”
Sir, these symptoms you describe about yourself are the very same my mother exhibited in the earlier stages of her Alzheimers disease.
, and that may be the flimsiest evidence to counter the panoply mispelling; but so it is. I do know how to spell in general very well.
“Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale,
from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced
by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”
If population had been stabilised at levels in the first millenium, perhaps Kepler, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Newton, Goethe, Jefferson, Edison, Fuller, Tesla, Einstein, D’Escarte, MLK, Salk and Gandhi, would not have been born and contributed. What genius of the future, with a vision possibly exceeding any of the aforementioned, would you care to sacrifice? Perhaps we should consider Bubonic plague, Hitler and Stalin positive environmental factors. Ready to sip the hemlock?
Sir, with all due respect, there are very few who know me that think, for even a second, that I have some fear of you. If you wanted to arm wrestle for a beer that is one thing, however I am not a willing participant in receiving a pie in the face with out the option to retaliate in kind.
stabilized at levels in the first millennium
[There was a better case for Iran than Iraq via Turabi. It still doesn't make sense from a national security viewpoint, even for simple revenge.]
Come on Ed, this is easy!
Iraq had been weakened by twelve years of sanctions calculated to make it easy to invade and conquer. meanwhile, we’d been setting Saddam up for a fall with the American public by turning him into a monster.
We were conveniently told that the person allegedly responsible for 9/11; bin Laden was in Afghanistan (even though he was most likely in Pakistan for most of the last 8 years).
Ergo, with Iraq and Afghanistan occupied by U.S. troops now ensconced in military bases in strategic locations, literally surrounding Iran, it will be much easier to attack by air and possibly at some point, ground.
Too quote the Wicked Witch of the East (or in this case, the West), “These things must be done delicately.”
[The United States alliance with Israel makes it more difficult to have any relation in the Middle East than anything else I can see. But yet despite the easy fix of ending relations with Israel, the States endures these hardship for what they think is right.]
Sorry Nathan, but there is no easy fix of ending relations with Israel. The very influential and powerful Israel Lobby; AIPAC assures the relationship remains strong.
The U.S. doesn’t endure this relationship because they believe the cause is just. They endure it because it gives us a strategic nuclear base in the Middle East, along with a large army in-place, for any possible future use to “secure our interests.”
I know you want to believe the best in people, but Nathan, politicians are people who’ve sold their soul for wealth and power. They have only self-interest in mind. Which is why our Constitution is set up to safeguard against the abuse of power and allows for people’s revolution if the power is abused.
The Founding Fathers knew human nature and so did Jesus. Just look at the advice Jesus’ gave people and you can see why we need forgiveness, compassion, and salvation. It’s because we are a greedy, selfish, murdering species. If we were naturally good and compassionate we wouldn’t need Jesus.
So be suspicious of anyone who seeks higher public office. They’ve forsaken humility, compassion and reason for the status and perks. Their need for fame, glory, and power comes with a price. We, and the Iraqis, Afghanis and Palestinians pay that price.
Sue,
I was just looking at what Mitch said to look at. There is no doubt that Iraq was a softened paper tiger, led by an odious ogre we were to fear. National Security had less than nothing to do with the Iraq front and probably everything to do with the Bush Admin self agrandisement of power and wealth, for various cronies that make Wall Street appear to be filled by angels of mercy.
Come on Ed, this is easy!
Iraq had been weakened by twelve years of sanctions calculated to make it easy to invade and conquer. meanwhile, we’d been setting Saddam up for a fall with the American public by turning him into a monster.
We were conveniently told that the person allegedly responsible for 9/11; bin Laden was in Afghanistan (even though he was most likely in Pakistan for most of the last 8 years).
Ergo, with Iraq and Afghanistan occupied by U.S. troops now ensconced in military bases in strategic locations, literally surrounding Iran, it will be much easier to attack by air and possibly at some point, ground.
Too quote the Wicked Witch of the East (or in this case, the West), “These things must be done delicately.”
Mr. McGarry,
I really don’t mind having my ideas attacked because for me the attacks offer a different perspective and an opportunity to learn. While you are under no obligation, if you have the desire to continue attacking me personally, you should do so face to face. You still don’t acknowlege the economic solution for immigration.
Chicken.
To use the 9/11 Commission for anything but butt wipe is delusional. Serious farce!
We must get our awareness past the “divide and conquer” mentality being used so effectively by media outlets large (FOX, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc) and small (CON-MAN?).
New source of alternative info.
http://www.kokomotion.com/TWH/docs/library.html
Sue, you are far and away the voice of knowledge and reason on issues of the Mid-East. Your focus is certainly there but I still believe the Achilles heel is 9/11.
If people were to see how hoodwinked they could be by that grand event their world of perception would be forever changed. I know mine was.
Ed, the economic solution for immigration is legal, plain and simple. People coming illegally across our borders at will and working to undermine the homies is not an economic solution.
Mess with people who hire them and send them home when we find them. As many times as it takes. Too simple? Maybe that is why I like it!
Building a fence does not change the supply of Labor willing to work for better compensation in the US (and at a rate less than what Americans legally have to be paid — even if there was parity with US wages in the US there would be downward pressure on wages because of the increase in supply). The fence, IDs, guards, vigilantes, moats and crocodiles will also not change the demand for that cheaper labor by the wealthy power elite in this country.
Adam Smith would state definitevely that this will create a black market. The way to remove this black market is to have Mexoco pay Mexicans equal pay for equal work in Mexico. I am not saying that I like the reality of that situation, I am just looking at it with as much objectivity as possible. Incidentally the same situation exists for the drug trade based on the demand in this country — the fact that it is illegal drives enourmous profits into substances that would otherwise be as cheap as dirt. Does anyone have any idea where some of those profits go??
The fastest, best way for Mexicans to get fair pay is to send them home to do it themselves. Many have seen how it is done here and will have the will to make THEIR HOME a better place when they are returned or return on their own because the labor market here dries up.
Drugs? That is a can of worms waaay too big for tonite my friend. I’ll just leave you with a little teaser. Drugs, Bush, CIA Headquarters…