The justice of our "allies"

[andrewlittle]

here is a story that should curl your toes, and it's about one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. Good to know that the U.S. has such good taste in it's allies, isn't it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm

An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.

[Steven E. Webster]

Indeed!

Bush and the neoconservatives claim to want to bring democracy to the Middle East and yet our strongest allies are brutal dictators in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan!

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

Guys...I hasten to remind you that many americans from all political persuasions, including Bush, have expressed disgust over how the Saudi Arabians have handled themselves. NOBODY I know (and I go to a conservative school, by the way) thinks that our Saudi Arabian allies are anything other than lousy.

In terms of America having good "taste" in its allies, just look at the choices. I think that America has aligned itself with the countries it feels are least likely to sponsor attacks on America or Israel, not based on each country's civil rights record. I'm not saying that that shouldn't be taken into account, I'm just saying that its like voting: when you get to the polls, sometimes you have to decide which one of the canidates is the least terrible out of several terrible choices.

[ladyinred]

perhaps an old buddhist saying? Of the two evils ,choose neither.One of the reason Bush stated we were in the war in Iraq was to liberate the Iraqis from an oppressive regime, how can you say yay on one side and nay on the other side. It seems we tend to choose allies that support so-called American interests even if they violate the people who are living under that regime.

If oppression is oppression how can you support certain countries that are known offenders of human rights and turn a blind eye and then in the same breath say you are trying to liberate other countries who have the same thing going on in their countries? It seems human rights takes the backburner if it conflicts with US policies and "interests" Obviously contradictory in terms of US foreign policies in the Middle East. Perhaps an acute case of schizophrenia?

Of course Saddam Hussein was once an ally of the US until he "misbehaved" and got out of line. What is to make us think that these so-called allies today won't be our "enemies" tommorrow? If it has happened before it can happen again. Interesting article on who helped Saddam build his arsenal of deadly weapons:http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp "As with many "devil's bargains," "it's come back to haunt us." Sen Donald Riegle JR

[Progo35]

That's precisely my point. Our enemies today may be our friends tomorrow and vice versa. But, I disagree about choosing neither. The US has to have some allies in the middle east, somewhere. I would say that from talking to people at Gordon who have gone on missionary trips in the middle east, Saudi Arabia is at least slightly less awful than, say, Iran. As for Sadamm Hussien, his people convicted and hanged him.

[ladyinred]

My point is have we learned from history? To be fair the United States was not the only nation supplying Saddam with weapons, Germany was said to be the primary supplier, but others were key players as well. But who get's to go in and clean up all the boo boos the American govt made with Saddam, of course our soldiers.

[Progo35]

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing our country get slammed around when we do practically half of the world's charity outreach to other countries.

[u-dog]

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing our country get slammed around when we do practically half of the world's charity outreach to other countries.

Just a clarification Megan, and maybe this is what you meant, American INVIDIVIDUALS, congregations, and NGO's do a LOT ( I don't know about half) of charitable work around the world. A LOT! But the US Government doesn't do ANYTHING without strings attached and without some kind of foreign policy or domestic political ulterior motive. This has been true since AT LEAST the days of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

[Progo35]

I agree with that...I guess I'm saying that I don't think that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Coneleeza Rice, et al, get into a room every day and say, "Let's see how we can oppress the world and blow people up for oil," which is how some people on "the left" make it sound. For instance, I just watched a clip of Keith Obermann on You Tube in which he says that the current US administration is a bigger threat to our country than Al Queada. I mean, take a shower!

But, also, I should say, I'm not meaning to yell at anyone on this thread, which may be how my last post came across.

[andrewlittle]

In this country there is an old adage taken from some old goodball that said, "Government of the people and for the people." It doesn't say, "Government IS the people."

Contrary to Bush's declaration years ago that "if you're not for us, you're against us" in which he tried to paint critics as being against US citizens, it is entirely permissable and indeed advisable to criticize government when it is needed and does not equate to "slamming this country." The current government, or past ones for that matter, are not "this country" and trying to equate the two is obfuscation - very common, but obfuscation, none the less.

When "negotiating" or exerting pressure on other governments to conform to practices that are advantageous to US business interests, this government has paraded out the "civil rights violations" as discussion points. But, as in the case of China for just one example, as movement occurs to improve economic or strategic relations, the civil rights abuses just get conveniently swept under the carpet.

Saudi Arabia sits on the world's biggest known deposits of oil, and maintains a moderate stand on supply-demand issues AND functions as a strategic ally in the Middle East. With that support we exert economic, political and even military pressure on countries purportedly because of their lousy history of civil rights. We entered Iraq supposedly to free the Iraqi people. Will we enter Saudi Arabia to free Saudi people - NO, because they are allies. Will we enter Darfur to free African people - NO, because they don't have much econimic interest for us.

Civil rights and abuses, for this administration, are nothing more than bargaining chips to gain advantage, and dispensible when advantage is gained.

Nothing in this statement said boo shit - neither good nor bad - about the people or indeed the country in which we live. It is a criticism of those who are supposed to be representing the people and the country. There is a difference.

The Bush administration far less about democracy (hmm, I initially typed demoncracy - Freudian?) and civil rights than it is about power and profit.

[BruceChris]

Of the word *democracy* is.

The Bush administration far less about democracy (hmm, I initially typed demoncracy - Freudian?) and civil rights than it is about power and profit.

Democracy is American government-speak for unbridled free market capitalism. So of course we want to spread democracy around the world. It makes a great sound-bite.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[antonyh]

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing our country get slammed around when we do practically half of the world's charity outreach to other countries.

Remember this quote?

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

I've found myself in dissent mode for the last eight years. I'm in dissent about this illegal war, I'm in dissent about how this administration has treated LGBT people...hell, I'm even dissent about the lack of universal health care.

Why? Because I love my new country.

[Progo35]

Keith Obermann and MSNBC in general support euthanizing the handicapped even when there is no conclusive proof of the person's wishes. THAT is what the fascists did, proof positive. Who're the Nazis now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8242393/

[andrewlittle]

Keith Obermann and MSNBC in general support euthanizing the handicapped even when there is no conclusive proof of the person's wishes. THAT is what the fascists did, proof positive. Who're the Nazis now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8242393/

Could we, at least, stick to the topic at hand?

There is a button on the main subforum pages that says "new thread". It is the handiest damn thing for posting something which is not the least bit relevant to the thread you're looking at, but which you feel compelled to talk about and get others feedback on.

It makes it much easier, when we honor this strange little system, for people to decide which discussion they want to engage in. And, you know, it has been tested and found to work. Just look at this thread, for example, which is about the human rights violations of U.S. allies.

Give it a try, Progo, you might be surprised how effectively it works.

[kara speltz]

I agree with that...I guess I'm saying that I don't think that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Coneleeza Rice, et al, get into a room every day and say, "Let's see how we can oppress the world and blow people up for oil," which is how some people on "the left" make it sound. For instance, I just watched a clip of Keith Obermann on You Tube in which he says that the current US administration is a bigger threat to our country than Al Queada. I mean, take a shower!




What I'm sick of is the fairy tale we americans believe that we are the best and most honorable country. Our history from the moment we stepped foot on this continent has pretty much been one of arrogance and acquisition. I agree with Obermann. At this moment in history the U.S. is the greatest danger to the world, because we believe we have the right to tell every other nation what it can and cannot do. Howard Zinn is one of the very few who honestly tells the story of our history.

How dare we tell Iran and Korea that they can't have nuclear weapons when we are the ONLY country in the world to use nuclear weapons against another people.

We used to surpass most nations in education and health but now we're way down the list. And as yet this country can't seem to accept women as equal. How many other countrys have had women leaders? I can't even keep count.

What I pray for most is that we as americans will find a sense of humility that will allow us to treat others as our equals; not as our servants and slaves.

kara

[inca nitta]

What I'm sick of is the fairy tale we americans believe that we are the best and most honorable country. Our history from the moment we stepped foot on this continent has pretty much been one of arrogance and acquisition.
kara


I'm sorry you feel hurt about our country. But, if what you say is true, which country in your view, would be better and have more honor than America?

Hasn't it been the same with other countries/nations/civilizations that have practiced arrogance and acquistion, in history? What about the Romans, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the Spanish, the French? They were all empires, so how are we different than any one of them?

Inca Nitta.

[u-dog]

I'm sorry you feel hurt about our country. But, if what you say is true, which country in your view, would be better and have more honor than America?

Hasn't it been the same with other countries/nations/civilizations that have practiced arrogance and acquistion? What about the Romans, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the Spanish, the French? They were all empires, so how are we different than any one of them?

Inca Nitta.

Not different AT ALL! Thats the problem. There is no country (no empire or great power anyway) that deserves more honor than America. America MUST hold itself to a HIGHER STANDARD than Rome, the Turks, the Brits, the Spanish and the French! We are a nation founded upon certain amazing ideals and principles and when we fail to live up to them it is more shameful than if we never had those ideals and were just the next big empire to climb to the top of the heap.

[Progo35]

Kara:

I'm sorry, but I think that you are absolutely NUTS to think that Iran and N. Korea should have nuclear weapons when they both have expressed intense animosity toward America and/or Israel.

Andrew: My comment on Olbermann and MSNBC is perfectly on topic because it goes to Olbermann's credibility as a newscaster. You and others on the forum feel that Bill O'Reilly and James Dobson's opinions on things should be grounds for dismissing most of what they say, so I think that I am perfectly within the standard of congruency where relevancy is concerned, if other posts are to be relied upon as a model. I don't understand the propensity I see here among many members to expect me to not give any credence to other of these men because of how they portray LGBT/social issues, but also expect me to excuse the ramblings of those who promote viscious and life-threatening stereotypes about the handicapped.

If Keith Olbermann wants to go spouting off, saying that the Bush Administration is as bad as the men who flew airplanes into the Pentagon and World Trade center, causing untold misery and death for thousands of people, than he had better at least put his money where his mouth is and be responsible in how he reports issues impacting the disabled community. If he only cares about what the Bush administration does overseas and doesn't care enough about a woman being dehydrated to death in his own country to cover her story accurately, with compassion, than I'm certainly not going to give credibility to controversial, explosive things he says about America. The kind of credibility needed to report such issues must be earned, and Keith Olbermann has not earned that credibility anymore than other contentious individuals we've been discussing on this forum. When he shows congruence in his concern for others, than I might start being more open to his commentary on the war and other things.

[Progo35]

All of this aside, does anyone here know how we might be able to help that poor woman mentioned in the BBC article? Does amnesty international have something going for her?

[kara speltz]

I'm sorry you feel hurt about our country. But, if what you say is true, which country in your view, would be better and have more honor than America?

Hasn't it been the same with other countries/nations/civilizations that have practiced arrogance and acquistion, in history? What about the Romans, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the Spanish, the French? They were all empires, so how are we different than any one of them?

Inca Nitta.

So let me see if I understand what you're saying, ... because other country's have practiced arrogance and acquisition throughout history, that justifies what the U.S. is doing? What distresses me so, is we as a people have almost no comprehension of the history of the U.S. We simply place love of country ABOVE love of our God. As Pablo Casels put it so beautifully, "The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?"

Unlike in Nazi Germany, Americans can't even claim they don't know what our country is doing in their names. Dan Berrigan the Jesuit poet expresses it so well in his book, No Bars to Manhood, "We have assumed the name of peacemakers but we have been, by and large, unwilling to pay any significant price And because we want the peace with half a heart and half a life and will, the war, of course, continues, because the waging of war, by its nature, is total -- but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial. So a whole will and a whole heart and a whole national life bent toward war prevail over the velleities of peace….There is no peace because the making of peace is at least as costly as the making of war -- at least as exigent, at least as disruptive, at least as liable to bring disgrace and prison and death in its wake."

kara

[inca nitta]

So let me see if I understand what you're saying, ... because other country's have practiced arrogance and acquisition throughout history, that justifies what the U.S. is doing? What distresses me so, is we as a people have almost no comprehension of the history of the U.S. We simply place love of country ABOVE love of our God. As Pablo Casels put it so beautifully, "The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?"

Unlike in Nazi Germany, Americans can't even claim they don't know what our country is doing in their names. Dan Berrigan the Jesuit poet expresses it so well in his book, No Bars to Manhood, "We have assumed the name of peacemakers but we have been, by and large, unwilling to pay any significant price And because we want the peace with half a heart and half a life and will, the war, of course, continues, because the waging of war, by its nature, is total -- but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial. So a whole will and a whole heart and a whole national life bent toward war prevail over the velleities of peace….There is no peace because the making of peace is at least as costly as the making of war -- at least as exigent, at least as disruptive, at least as liable to bring disgrace and prison and death in its wake."

kara

Hi Kara,

I am at this point very confused what is going on. I am not even sure what to believe. I really want to be non-judgmental on the issue of what is US doing. However, it seemed to me, that in your previous post, you were implying that the characteristic of "arrogant acquisition" is only attibutable to the US. I asserted that the same characteristic was common in other nations throughout history, since the beginning of the civilization. I am saying that we are simply following the footsteps, of what has been done repeatedly by other nations, but in a different way. Why we do that? I don't know. Maybe, out of fear that if we don't build an economic empire, we will become extinct. But, this is just my opinion.

Thank you, very much for referencing to the book. It looks like this poet has a lot of soul. I will check this book out, someday.

I found very interesting to hear what you said, but I still would like to know, which country do you find to be more honorable and better than the US? I asked this question before, referencing to this post of yours:

What I'm sick of is the fairy tale we americans believe that we are the best and most honorable country.

I really would like to know,

Inca

[Progo35]

"Unlike in Nazi Germany, Americans can't even claim they don't know what our country is doing in their names."-Kara

Kara, I'm sorry, but please wake up. the Germans CLEARLY KNEW that various people groups were being MURDERED, as many of them turned these people in or PARTICIPATED in the murder of Jews, disabled people, gypsies, political dissenters and homosexuals. Many Germans were ignorant of what was going on, but in general, enough people knew and did not act. Moreover, I believe that you know this.

[kara speltz]

Hi Kara,

I am at this point very confused what is going on. I am not even sure what to believe. I really want to be non-judgmental on the issue of what is US doing.
I found very interesting to hear what you said, but I still would like to know, which country do you find to be more honorable and better than the US? I asked this question before, referencing to this post of yours:



I really would like to know,

Inca

Canada is the first country that comes to mind for me. I've seriously thought about moving there, but because this is the country that is creating the chaos, I firmly believe that would be a cop out.

As Americans, we cannot afford to be "nonjudgemental." This is supposedly a democracy. But Americans have so much privelege as compared to the rest of the world that we prefer to protect our privelege even if it means the destruction of the planet. For instance, the U.S is one of the very few countries that refused to sign the Kyoto Agreements on pollution.

Do I love my country, yes, I love it enough to keep calling it back to its original vision. I can't tell you how many times people have said, America love it or leave it to me. But let me make an analogy, that I feel is very appropriate. Three women are married to alcoholics. The first woman denies that he's an alcoholic and pretends everything is alright (this is the majority of Americans as they view this country). The second says she can't take living with an alcoholic and leaves him. The third woman learns all she can about alcoholism, joins an Alanon group and invites the family to lovingly confront the alcoholic about what he is doing.

While I surely would never condemn anyone who chooses to leave an alcoholic, my strongest respect goes to the woman who stays and fights for her family. That's how I see myself. As an adult child of an alcoholic, this analogy resonates with me deeply.

kara

[ladyinred]

In response to Kara's and Progo's posts,(And of course now the Bush adminstration is doing more saber rattling about attacking Iran, do we need another world war by the way?)I think an objective view about Iran is needed here. It would be better if all countries to do away with nuclear weapons period.If certain countries have it other countries want it and will go out of their way to get it. Here is an article posted along with another article about Iran. It gives more of an objective view to the situation.:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070305_what_would_you_do_if_you_were_iran/

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/06/342/ What if Iran invaded Mexico

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/aftermath.html, The after affects of the Iraq invasion has increased terrorism world wide
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20061219_iranians_skeptical_about_us_tehran_dialog ue/

While I don't agree with the Iranian presidents anti-semitic remarks or threats ,the moslem world has been at odds with Israel for sometime.But in fact are we any better when we make remarks like "nuke Iran off the map", Or you moslems are a bunch of fanatics and child molesters?" I see this stuff on forums all the time.
What about Mc Cains remarks ,"bomb, bomb Iran" that the audience laughed at. Can we claim that we are morally superior then? As A country we have since the inception of this country been involved in numerous wars(both large and small, including with the native people here. ) In fact it seems we are always in some conflict or war with a country. I agree with Kara's and Andrew's statements as well.

We have even overthrown democracy in other countries to place despots in power. And we claim that we promote and champion democracy then? Does this mean I am anti-American,no or not patriotic, no. But We seem to be pretty much hypocritical when we say one thing and do another.
Of course I know somewhat the cost of war on our side being it's long term effects on our troops,my dad was a vet, but what about the long term effects on another country in terms of human casualities as well, often civillians are seen as "colateral damage" by our govt. It certainly treats them as if they have no human face either,like it's no big deal.

My main concern is that world war three might happen precisely because of Bush's stand on Iran and function as a self fulfilling prophecy as creating a full scale war in the middle east. Would Israel be safer, If America attacked Iran, it may cause other countries such as Syria and groups such as Hamas to rally around Iran. It would most likely increase even more hostility in the moslem world against Israel and also create a backlash for our troops already in Iraq . I also am concerned that as a result there will be more potential for terrorists attacks on our country and throughout the world. Also Iran might be getting covert support from other nations like Russia and China?(they have in the past.http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453445.0395833333.html,http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/16/america/NA-GEN-US-Military-Surplus-Stings.php

Here is an article I just found, that Iran in the past even tried to negotiate with the USA and Israel, but Cheny and Bush rejected it.http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/26/iran_israel_and_nuclear_weapons.php

Frankly I'm sick of the neocons and saber rattling. You cannot force democracy down people's throats and say this is the way it's going to be, you live by our rules and standards or else.(And then of course take their resources for your own profit and gain) It's not likely they are going to go along with it . To them it is oppression and trying to force an occupation (As in Iraq)on them that will take over or control their government with a puppet regime that supports US interests.( The shah of Iran comes to mind, the Shah was put in power with the help of the CIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'étatto to replace the democratic leader in the 50's Mosaddaq was the democratic leader of Iran at the time who decided that Iran should have control over it's oil instead of Great Britain. You can read the rest on the above link, it's a short description of what happened. Now you may know why oil is often seen as a suspect motive for war.The Shah was also brutal to his own people.
And you may now understand why we aren't exactly viewed favorably by many Moslems.

[ladyinred]

In this country there is an old adage taken from some old goodball that said, "Government of the people and for the people." It doesn't say, "Government IS the people."

Contrary to Bush's declaration years ago that "if you're not for us, you're against us" in which he tried to paint critics as being against US citizens, it is entirely permissable and indeed advisable to criticize government when it is needed and does not equate to "slamming this country." The current government, or past ones for that matter, are not "this country" and trying to equate the two is obfuscation - very common, but obfuscation, none the less.

When "negotiating" or exerting pressure on other governments to conform to practices that are advantageous to US business interests, this government has paraded out the "civil rights violations" as discussion points. But, as in the case of China for just one example, as movement occurs to improve economic or strategic relations, the civil rights abuses just get conveniently swept under the carpet.

Saudi Arabia sits on the world's biggest known deposits of oil, and maintains a moderate stand on supply-demand issues AND functions as a strategic ally in the Middle East. With that support we exert economic, political and even military pressure on countries purportedly because of their lousy history of civil rights. We entered Iraq supposedly to free the Iraqi people. Will we enter Saudi Arabia to free Saudi people - NO, because they are allies. Will we enter Darfur to free African people - NO, because they don't have much econimic interest for us.

Civil rights and abuses, for this administration, are nothing more than bargaining chips to gain advantage, and dispensible when advantage is gained.

Nothing in this statement said boo shit - neither good nor bad - about the people or indeed the country in which we live. It is a criticism of those who are supposed to be representing the people and the country. There is a difference.

The Bush administration far less about democracy (hmm, I initially typed demoncracy - Freudian?) and civil rights than it is about power and profit.
Perhaps we should call our " demonacracy" as you say a Corporatocracy?One should wonder why it has been said that the love of money(greed in my mind) is the root of all evil.(Or at least many of the "evils")Note, I don't see money itself as evil, but it depends on the motives of people and their way of using money.
."Greed is good", remember Michael Douglas said in one of his movies, someone should have bi--h slapped him by the way.

If we truly want to be a just society we have to have respect for the rights of others and not just think about our own "selfish interests" If we think in terms of what benefits us at the cost or at the expense of others that cannot be called respect .

[Progo35]

I never said anything about bombing Iran, (which I hope we will not do), I said that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and to assert that they should be allowed to have them because we have them is lunacy. It is also wrong and deceptive to argue that the Nazis didn't know what was going on. That is insulting to all of the victims who died in the holocaust and contributes to the perpetuation of such behavior by depicting two sets of people differently based on the argument that they have done the same thing. If America has ignored atrocities we have perpetuated, Nazi Germany CERTAINLY did the same thing.

So, frankly, I am angered that Kara would assert something so obviously false, and I am, moreover, feeling justified in that anger. It was a ridiculous, misleading, culturally damaging thing to say. It's like saying that Nazi Germany was somehow less culpable for what it did than the US is for what it is allegedly doing. Nukes aside, lying is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[keltic63]

"Unlike in Nazi Germany, Americans can't even claim they don't know what our country is doing in their names."-Kara

Kara, I'm sorry, but please wake up. the Germans CLEARLY KNEW that various people groups were being MURDERED, as many of them turned these people in or PARTICIPATED in the murder of Jews, disabled people, gypsies, political dissenters and homosexuals. Many Germans were ignorant of what was going on, but in general, enough people knew and did not act. Moreover, I believe that you know this.

You know, you can't have it
both ways.
both ways.

They either knew something was going on, or they didn't. For the few that may have known, fear is a great motivator, especially if you're calling out a murderer.

[Progo35]

Many Germans were ignorant of what was going on, but in general, enough people knew and did not act.

Well, for that matter, I don't think that what the US has done in Iraq is congruent with the actions of Nazi Germany, so I guess I'm "ignorant of what's going on."

Be that as it may, Keltic, do you think that the Germans supposed that when their Jewish, gay, and disabled neigbors started disappearing, they were abducted by aliens? Moreover, "many" does not constitute the "majority," or, "those most able to do something." I'm guessing that most five year olds did not know that the government abducted their next door neighbors, and that some people might have clung to the notion that they had moved. But, 85 percent, at least, of that country KNEW what was going on.

So, perhaps you should stop excusing Nazi Germany for what it did so that you can conform history to your own worlview. That, frankly, is disgusting, and I'm not sorry for saying that. And, also, both of you have convienently avoided my point that "lying is wrong, wrong, wrong." Why? Is it, perhaps, because you know that Kara's previous assertion regarding the respective culpability of US and German citizens is bullshit? I think so.

[keltic63]

Many Germans were ignorant of what was going on, but in general, enough people knew and did not act.

Well, for that matter, I don't think that what the US has done in Iraq is congruent with the actions of Nazi Germany, so I guess I'm "ignorant of what's going on."

Be that as it may, Keltic, do you think that the Germans supposed that when their Jewish, gay, and disabled neigbors started disappearing, they were abducted by aliens? Moreover, "many" does not constitute the "majority," or, "those most able to do something." I'm guessing that most five year olds did not know that the government abducted their next door neighbors, and that some people might have clung to the notion that they had moved. But, 85 percent, at least, of that country KNEW what was going on.

So, perhaps you should stop excusing Nazi Germany for what it did so that you can conform history to your own worlview. That, frankly, is disgusting, and I'm not sorry for saying that. And, also, both of you have convienently avoided my point that "lying is wrong, wrong, wrong." Why? Is it, perhaps, because you know that Kara's previous assertion regarding the respective culpability of US and German citizens is bullshit? I think so.

deep breath. I'm about to do something I rarely do, but I'm sick, I'm cranky, and I'll most likely regret doing this in the morning....

Progo, my dear, you have pissed me off.

You've highjacked this thread.
You've used absurd examples to back up your points
You've accused more than one person of "excusing Nazi Germany" when no one, including MYSELF has done that!
I merely pointed out that in YOUR OWN STATEMENT, you were trying to have it both ways, by saying that Germany knew, and Germany did not know. YOU ARE INCONSISTENT!
You take many threads where they do not need to go, and not only off-topic, but back to your own deeply personal issues.
You are a provocateur and passive-aggressive. Many of your threads begin with general accusations in their titles, and you are often "shocked" that so many forum members are offended by your comments.
You make claims that you cannot support, and very often demand that other forum members do your research for you.
You cite biased news sources, then dare others to make counter claims so you can discount them by citing more biased news sources.
So I'm disgusting? I can't really say I care what you think of me.
Did anyone here say that lying is right, right, right?
Moreover, did I make any statement of opinion on Iraq? NO. Did I make a statement of opinion on Kara's comparison of it and Nazi Germany? NO. I did suggest that if there were people with knowledge of what was going on in Germany during the Holocaust, their own fear (self preservation) might have prevented them from doing the right (morally) thing. It pisses me off that you believe you can read my mind and know, from my few words what I think about Germany, the Holocaust, Iraq, and Kara's posts.Get a grip on life, girl. Stop highjacking threads. Stop beating people up here because they disagree with you. Do some balanced research before you post your opinions.

[Progo35]

Wow, Keltic

I am quite shocked by the fact that you, yourself, are totally okay with bias from one end of the spectrum, you just don't want it from the other end of the spectrum.

Yes, of course you did not reply to what I said regarding Kara's thread. That would force you to actually confront what I was responding to.

I didn't know that disability issues were only personal issues because I'm disabled. I've always thought that LGBT issues were legitimate concerns that LGBT people had the most experience with and therefore were more likely to articulate to others. But, I must have been wrong: if I'm only talking about how disability issues relate to topics because they're personal, than all of you must be connecting LGBT issues with other things because of their personal significance.

If you're pissed, that's tough. You get a grip, Keltic.

[keltic63]

Locking this thread for a cool down.....even if it is my own.

In addition, this thread has gone way off topic.