A Good Reason for Entering Iraq?

[Progo35]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/19/iraq.torture.complex/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Someone has to do something about things like this.

[kara speltz]

Oh, Progo, your lack of comprehension just astounds me. While I mourn the loss of 26 people, do you have any idea of how many Iraqi deaths the U.S. is responsible for.

Forgetting the war, for a moment, the restrictions we placed on shipments to Iraq accounted for approximately 5,000 - 6,000 deaths a year for ten years! That's approximately 50,000 Iraqi deaths, most of them children.

Now getting back to this ugly, deceitful war we are criminally waging on the Iraqi people, we've refused to count the Iraqi dead, but estimates are that minamally some 100,000 people have died each year of the war. That sure looks like genocide on the part of the U.S. to me.

Again, all life is precious but there is NO EXCUSE for the lies that lead up to this criminal act that the U.S. has perpetuated on Iraq. I have been there twice since this war began. And you know what? The only real construction that has gone on in Iraq is the building of huge, U.S. military bases!

kara

[antonyh]

I hate this immoral war as well. I wrote an anti-war poem a while back and I thought I'd share it.

http://www.starbucks.com/retail/images/bevlineup_header_02.jpg

The Caramel Macchiatos

500,000 Solo Cups
of foamed Iraqi blood
in the Twin Towers of the
military-industrial complex.

Espresso beans
for Iraqi children,
compressed under
laser-guided
bunker busting
bombs
forcing out
the oily mantle
of reddish-brown crema.

Three pumps Lockheed
two shots from above
over 98.6 degree liquid to the foam,
a sweet crosshatch
of delicious lies
cloaked in the Imperial Seal.

It was inspired by the movie Why We Fight:
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

Here are my pictures from the Antiwar march in Chicago. I love show and tell:lol:::weee:
http://pics.livejournal.com/ardh/gallery/0000gz2g

P.S. did you read the "Defense" Reauthorization Bill? Ya know the one where the little gay hate crime bill was removed from...

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 101. ARMY.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for procurement for the Army as follows:

(1) For aircraft, $4,168,798,000.

(2) For missiles, $1,911,979,000.

(3) For weapons and tracked combat vehicles, $3,007,489,000.

(4) For ammunition, $2,214,576,000.

(5) For other procurement, $12,451,312,000.

(6) For the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, $228,000,000.

SEC. 102. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.

(a) Navy- Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for procurement for the Navy as follows:

(1) For aircraft, $12,432,644,000.

(2) For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes, $3,068,187,000.

(3) For shipbuilding and conversion, $13,596,120,000.

(4) For other procurement, $5,209,330,000.

(b) Marine Corps- Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for procurement for the Marine Corps in the amount of $2,299,419,000.

(c) Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition- Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for procurement of ammunition for the Navy and the Marine Corps in the amount of $1,058,832,000.

SEC. 103. AIR FORCE.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for procurement for the Air Force as follows:

(1) For aircraft, $12,117,800,000.

(2) For ammunition, $854,167,000.

(3) For missiles, $4,984,102,000.

(4) For other procurement, $15,405,832,000.

I can almost hear Lockheed Martin wetting it's pants.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:7:./temp/~c110tuTaGz:e88652:

I mean with all this hardware in the pipeline, we will definitely have to go to war with Iran.

[inca nitta]

Oh, Progo, your lack of comprehension just astounds me. While I mourn the loss of 26 people, do you have any idea of how many Iraqi deaths the U.S. is responsible for.

Forgetting the war, for a moment, the restrictions we placed on shipments to Iraq accounted for approximately 5,000 - 6,000 deaths a year for ten years! That's approximately 50,000 Iraqi deaths, most of them children.

Now getting back to this ugly, deceitful war we are criminally waging on the Iraqi people, we've refused to count the Iraqi dead, but estimates are that minamally some 100,000 people have died each year of the war. That sure looks like genocide on the part of the U.S. to me.

Again, all life is precious but there is NO EXCUSE for the lies that lead up to this criminal act that the U.S. has perpetuated on Iraq. I have been there twice since this war began. And you know what? The only real construction that has gone on in Iraq is the building of huge, U.S. military bases!

kara

So, Kara,

All this information that we constantly hear from various news about Iraqi civilians dying at the hands of the Al-Quaida insurgents and other Islamic fundamentalists, against whom our soldiers are officially fighting including my own cousin James, is nothing but a deceitful propaganda coming from our genocidal government? Is this the truth? Is it also true that majority of Iraqi civilians including women and children, are in reality, being killed by American soldiers, but our government is deceiving us by blaming it on Al-Quaida? Is that right?

I also have another friend who is in the Navy reserve, and he is a Seabee, that's a nickname for a construction battalion, a Navy unit specialized in construction. He just got back from Iraq, and he told me that besides building military bases, his and other Seabee batallion were building several schools, hospitals, banks. I also remember, I saw on TV how some American contractors has built a huge bank in Baghdad, but that was like 6 months ago.

What do you think about that?

[kara speltz]

So, Kara,

All this information that we constantly hear from various news about Iraqi civilians dying at the hands of the Al-Quaida insurgents and other Islamic fundamentalists, against whom our soldiers are officially fighting including my own cousin James, is nothing but a deceitful propaganda coming from our genocidal government? Is this the truth? Is it also true that majority of Iraqi civilians including women and children, are in reality, being killed by American soldiers, but our government is deceiving us by blaming it on Al-Quaida? Is that right?

I also have another friend who is in the Navy reserve, and he is a Seabee, that's a nickname for a construction battalion, a Navy unit specialized in construction. He just got back from Iraq, and he told me that besides building military bases, his and other Seabee batallion were building several schools, hospitals, banks. I also remember, I saw on TV how some American contractors has built a huge bank in Baghdad, but that was like 6 months ago.
What do you think about that?

What I am saying is that the VAST MAJORITY of Iraqis killed from this war have been killed by our military forces. When I was in Baghdad right after the war started, the U.S. dropped fragmentary bombs on residential areas of Baghdad. These bombs are the same ones we used in VN. They are designed to not to destroy property but to send out tiny little metal balls that imbed into people's skin. I saw them, I held them. I almost brought some home, but then we remembered that the U.S. was using uranium in a lot of their weapons, and we had no geiger counter to tell if they were radioactive.

And big whoopie we're building banks? There was some rebuilding of schools while I was there, I have heard of no hospitals being built. We haven't brought freedom to the Iraqi people, we've only brought chaos.

And yes, our press, for the most part, shows us only what our government wants us to see.

[antonyh]

Just to put some numbers on what Kara is saying. The Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group did research based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005. The report: A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/graphs/dbtimeline.php

Who was killed?

-24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
-Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
-Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.

When did they die?

-30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
-Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).

Who did the killing?

-US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
-Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
-Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
-Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

What was the most lethal weaponry?

-Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
-Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
-Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).

How many were injured?

-At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.
-The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.
-Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.
-The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase.

Who provided the information?

-Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.
-Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.
-Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.

In Speaking today at the launch of the report in London, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the report's authors said:

“The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. Our data show that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope that this research will help to inform decision-makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country. It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed.”

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/12/

[TigerXero]

Oh my... I had not idea it was that bad. (But I also wasn't very aware of the world around me in seventh grade either).

[Progo35]

Hey, Inca,

I'll definitely be praying for your cousin and friend. I also know people who are fighting over there and am so grateful for the good things that they have done, such as rebuilding schools, parks and other resources. It's good that we have people from both perspectives on the war around, so that we can all make each other aware of what's going on. I know that we're all praying that this conflict ends soon, that Iraq will be more stable, and that our troops can return home.

[antonyh]

It's good that we have people from both perspectives on the war around, so that we can all make each other aware of what's going on. I know that we're all praying that this conflict ends soon, that Iraq will be more stable, and that our troops can return home.

OK Missy Progo. That was so politically correct I can almost chuck my breakfast (or is that lunch).

We flouted the United Nations and preemptively struck a sovereign nation on the basis of trumped up intelligence and slaughtered thousands and thousands and thousands of Iraqi woman and children so that we could empty our 77,000,000,000 stockpile of smart bombs and fatten the coffers of Lockheed Martin, Halibigburt and Mr. Dickie Chainsaw.

There is no, I mean NO atonement for what we did. Our little imperialist empire has overstepped it's bounds. We have abused our power and privilege. We have acted immorally by even the most conservative theology of war. We have angered God.

If you look at my little show-and-tell slide show above, you'll notice that many of the most ardent anti-war protesters were soldiers who returned from Iraq...and the parents of soldiers who lost their children on the battlefield.

I just hope that the anti-war movement can fill up the streets of America in '08 so that we can send an election year statement about the kind of America we want.

I'm proud of the soldiers for doing their duty but I am not proud of this immoral war.

[inca nitta]

Hi folks,

I just found some recent news on what's going on in Iraq, right now:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

It's from Associated Press, I don't know if that's good or bad, but I think it's interesting to read it.

I must admit that the picture of the soldier and Iraqi kids on the swings, looks pretty neat.:)

[Progo35]

Although still needing a lot of time and effort, there have been some very, very encouraging developments in Iraq, such as the construction of parks, the rebuilding of schools, and generally making normal resources, like basic medicine and food, available to the public. Hiraldo Rivera did a particularly in depth report on how Iraq is going, which he has been following for quite some time. It is truly heartwarming to see that in some ways, we have been able to improve the living conditions for people over there.

[Daniel]

Although still needing a lot of time and effort, there have been some very, very encouraging developments in Iraq, such as the construction of parks, the rebuilding of schools, and generally making normal resources, like basic medicine and food, available to the public. Hiraldo Rivera did a particularly in depth report on how Iraq is going, which he has been following for quite some time. It is truly heartwarming to see that in some ways, we have been able to improve the living conditions for people over there.

Everything is just hunky-dory in Iraq, isn't it? Perhaps you haven't been reading the latest news. While the so-called 'surge' has improved the security environment, the political front, where real improvement is going to have to take place, is dead in the water. And Miss Condi has been doing precious little about the matter. In fact, the Iraqi Congress recently gave themselves another month off after already taking an extended 'vacation'. I guess they're not in much of a hurry to make peace. But ain't it grand that we're still there killing lots of people in the name of democracy- a democracy- I should add- which no one seems in a hurry to embrace. They're too busy fighting a centuries old war.

What was said during the Vietnam war is still true: you can't make peace at the end of a gun.

We can't stay there forever. And you can bet your sweet life that the American people will see to it that we don't stay there forever. And it is estimated that it will take more than 20 years before an Iraqi force is able to bring security to it's own country. The next President is going to have quite a pickle on his/her hands.

Heartwarming you say? I guess it depends on what propaganda one listens to.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo

Pentagon Says Services in Iraq Are Stagnant
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/19military.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/world/middleeast/16najaf.html
Iraqi City Poised to Become Hub of Shiite Power

That shift would further weaken the Iraqi central government and complete Najaf’s transformation from a dusty, conservative town known mostly for its golden-domed shrine and soaring minarets into the undisputed center of a potentially semiautonomous Shiite region, with some of the country’s richest oil reserves.

So the surge is going well and the country is pullling apart at the seams. What could be better?

I know! Maybe the price of gasoline will come down a little bit. After all, isn't that why we're there?

Hurrah for Halliburton!

[Progo35]

[QUOTE=Daniel;49109]

Heartwarming you say? I guess it depends on what propoganda one listens to.

That's right! It does depend on what propoganda one listens to!:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo

Pentagon Says Services in Iraq Are Stagnant
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/19military.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/world/middleeast/16najaf.html
Iraqi City Poised to Become Hub of Shiite Power

[Daniel]

[QUOTE=Daniel;49109]

Heartwarming you say? I guess it depends on what propaganda one listens to.

That's right! It does depend on what propaganda one listens to!:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo

Pentagon Says Services in Iraq Are Stagnant
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/19military.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/world/middleeast/16najaf.html
Iraqi City Poised to Become Hub of Shiite Power


So the sources I linked to are propaganda? The pentagon? Just who do you think you are kidding?

I see that you were is such a hurry that your forgot to use the quote feature correctly. It's a small matter, but then again, it show's one just how much time was invested in the information provided. Or did you even look at it? Bet not. It came from the evil NYTimes, right?

Does your disability prevent you from reading? Because it sure doesn't prevent you from reacting.

Oh....What fun we're doing to have now.

Too bad all those gay people in Iraq are being slaughted left and right. Remember them? Too bad they can't go to those wonderful new schools built by Halliburton or God-Knows-Who, the same outfit that pays their people 6 times as much as we do our own military. In case you didn't know we contract that out. How lovely! An outsourced war! Who would have thought? It's the Hessians all over again! And let's not forget that nice and private army called Blackwater, which, when it commits an atrocity (which they have by the way), well, they have immunity from prosecution, curtesy of our own Congress. Fancy that!

Yes! Things are looking up in Iraq!

At this point I feel like Auntie Em in The Wizard of Oz, who famously said: "Elmira Gulch.....I've always wanted to tell you what I think of you, but as a Christian woman, I can't!"

The tornado is coming Miss Dorothy. I suggest you head for the storm cellar. And don't forget your shoes.

[antonyh]

wZUN-iu0tEg

The tears of the children fall upon my heart. When the tears dry, my heart breaks, like the dry earth after the rain dries up.

[Progo35]

Daniel: God bless you!!!

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's a link to Andrew Sullivan from the end of yesterday.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/mission-accom-2.html

Andrew was pro-war at the beginning, but has changed his mind because of that stubborn little thing known as "reality."

The U.S. Military is not the boy scouts and they don't exist to perform good deeds. We did not go into Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts. I don't blame the U.S. Military for Iraq or for war, I blame our political leadership (if you can call it that).

Steven Webster

[scott snedeker]

I just hope that the anti-war movement can fill up the streets of America in '08 so that we can send an election year statement about the kind of America we want.

.


Do you have a where and when?

[Daniel]

Do you have a where and when?

Scotty- You know, Charles Rangle got it right, a sure-fire way to get a groundswell of opposition would form if we had a draft (he took a lot of heat for introducing just such a measure).

And Progo- what were we told to do after 9/11? Go shopping! And hey- the rich folks got their a huge tax windfall. Nothing like a little sacrifice to put things in perspectice. :rolleyes: Rich folks get their off-shore accounts, everyone gets their flatscreen TV's and the oil companies had a hayday. Everyone wins- except the Iraqi's....but oh...let's not think about that. Oh...and we're not letting them immigrate here (we allow a significanlty less percentage than other countries). Aren't we just so welcoming? So Christian of us, wouldn't you say? We bomb them and then prevent them from taking refuge here.

Hubby and I went to the last big demonstration her in NYC on the eve of the last election. And the 'so-called liberal media' hardly covered it. And it was big.

But hey Scotty- I'm with ya. I'll show up again. As long as it takes.

Progo- thanks for the blessings. I hope you're doing your homework. That storm I talked about? It's real. It's going to come in the form of a big bill which YOUR generation is going to have to pay in more ways than one. Don't you just love the guys in office who've morgaged away your future?

[antonyh]

Do you have a where and when?

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

I would keep your eye on this site so that you can learn about your local antiwar marches in March on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

[Steven E. Webster]

what were we told to do after 9/11? Go shopping! And hey- the rich folks got their a huge tax windfall. Nothing like a little sacrifice to put things in perspectice. :rolleyes: Rich folks get their off-shore accounts, everyone gets their flatscreen TV's and the oil companies had a hayday. Everyone wins- except the Iraqi's....but oh...let's not think about that.

Of course, we are too often forgetting the sacrifices of the men and women in the military. We are spared the sight of their caskets coming home. We don't pay much attention to the large number of physical and mental military casualties of the war. Many of these young folks get sent there again and again and consequently their marriages break up. etc. etc. etc.

If you're looking for a "good war" to celebrate, Progo, this ain't the one!

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

No war is good, Steven.

[Steven E. Webster]

No war is good, Steven.

Progo,

And not only is the Iraq War not a good war, it was unnecessary and imprudent. It was a war of choice--it was chosen by a small group of neoconservatives who deceived the nation (and maybe themselves as well) by lying about so-called "weapons of mass distruction" and the alleged (but non-existent) connection between Saddam and 9-11.

This small group of neoconservatives foolishly believed that this war would advance U.S. interests, but instead it has destabilized the Middle East, raised the specter of wider war in the future and has weakened and damaged our military besides.

Do you wonder, Progo, why people here have gotten so worked up over the ignorant and misinformed idea that there was a "Good Reason for Entering Iraq"?

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

Do you wonder, Progo, why people here have gotten so worked up over the ignorant and misinformed idea that there was a "Good Reason for Entering Iraq"?

Steven Webster

No, Steven, I don't wonder about that. What I do wonder about is why views that take all factors into consideration-the good, the bad and the ugly-are labled as "ignorant and misinformed" without any in depth consideration of the opposite side's assessment of these matters, or consideration for the fact that you just labled me and others who have noted anything positive about Iraq's current condition as "neo-conservatives," "ignorant," and "misinformed." Personally, I wouldn't take the NY Times (a liberal publication) or the Wall Street Journal (a conservative publication) as my only authorities on anything, and to me, part of making decisions about whether something is right or wrong involves considering any positive impact that an action may have, even if one is aware of numerous negative results. I'm going to continue doing this, and I'm going to make mistakes, but at least at the end of the day, I made up my mind myself, just as you have.

[antonyh]

And not only is the Iraq War not a good war, it was unnecessary and imprudent. It was a war of choice--it was chosen by a small group of neoconservatives who deceived the nation (and maybe themselves as well) by lying about so-called "weapons of mass distruction" and the alleged (but non-existent) connection between Saddam and 9-11.


It is interesting that you bring up the neoconservatives. Check out this press release titled, "House Passes Conference Report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007".

http://republicans.armedservices.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=376

I checked the names of all the Republicans on the Armed Services Committee. The vast majority of them are also members of the Republican Study Committee:

Rep. Duncan Hunter, Ranking Member (R-CA), RSC
Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ)
Rep. John McHugh (R-NY)
Rep. Terry Everett (R-AL)
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), RSC
Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon RSC
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) RSC
Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) RSC
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), RSC
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) RSC
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) RSC
Rep. John Kline (R-MN) RSC
Rep. Phil Gingrey, MD (R-GA) RSC
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), RSC
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), RSC

Mission of the Republican Study Committee:

The Republican Study Committee is a group of over 110 House Republicans organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives. The Republican Study Committee is dedicated to:

* a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government,
* a strong national defense,
* the protection of individual and property rights,
* and the preservation of traditional family values.

The Republican Study Committee work directly with the Christian Right through the Family Research Council:

The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.

It makes me VERY uncomfortable that the Christian Right have so many of "their people" on the war committee. I could never figure out why the mega churches were so pro-war. I guess I know now.

And then there is that thing nagging at me. Mother Linda (our Episcopal priest in Bloomington) used to always say,

This is a war of fundamentalisms

[Emproph]

So, Kara,

All this information that we constantly hear from various news about Iraqi civilians dying at the hands of the Al-Quaida insurgents and other Islamic fundamentalists, against whom our soldiers are officially fighting including my own cousin James, is nothing but a deceitful propaganda coming from our genocidal government? Is this the truth? Is it also true that majority of Iraqi civilians including women and children, are in reality, being killed by American soldiers, but our government is deceiving us by blaming it on Al-Quaida? Is that right?

I also have another friend who is in the Navy reserve, and he is a Seabee, that's a nickname for a construction battalion, a Navy unit specialized in construction. He just got back from Iraq, and he told me that besides building military bases, his and other Seabee batallion were building several schools, hospitals, banks. I also remember, I saw on TV how some American contractors has built a huge bank in Baghdad, but that was like 6 months ago.

What do you think about that?

Inca Nitta,

I realize Kara responded to this post, but I feel lead to respond as well.

You didn’t make a case against the unnecessary ugliness of the truth of the “war,” you just made a case for certain-ends, justifying the means.

This is supposedly a war on terror, supposedly due to 9/11. And 9/11 was due to Saudi Arabians, not Iraqis. Yet your concern revolves around defending the distraction of Iraq.

In addition, historically speaking, we’re responsible for the entire situation. We financially supported Iraq in war before, and then sanctioned them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions), causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Point being, there's mountains of information that makes what good has been done, insignificant.

That’s one of the first things that’s wrong with this argument. The argument itself is fundamentally corrupt. Because this isn't about Iraq, it's about right and wrong, in regard to terror. And if we look at Iraq in regard to right and wrong in regard to terror, the U.S. is the terrorist nation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to kill, and approve of killing in order to protect the innocent. But if I'm going to put myself in the position to make that kind of decision, which I do, I'm going to make sure I know the extent to which the guilty party is truly guilty, and the innocent party is truly innocent.

A bandaid on a stab wound isn't good news, especially when the medic is responsible for the situation that caused the injury.

[Emproph]

No, Steven, I don't wonder about that. What I do wonder about is why views that take all factors into consideration-the good, the bad and the ugly-are labled as "ignorant and misinformed" without any in depth consideration of the opposite side's assessment of these matters, or consideration for the fact that you just labled me and others who have noted anything positive about Iraq's current condition as "neo-conservatives," "ignorant," and "misinformed." Personally, I wouldn't take the NY Times (a liberal publication) or the Wall Street Journal (a conservative publication) as my only authorities on anything, and to me, part of making decisions about whether something is right or wrong involves considering any positive impact that an action may have, even if one is aware of numerous negative results. I'm going to continue doing this, and I'm going to make mistakes, but at least at the end of the day, I made up my mind myself, just as you have.

Are you sure about that part in bold, because I personally try only to make the "ignorant and misinformed" claim after an thorough assessment has been made.

Here's my beef.

Any "good" done in Iraq, is done in context of, and on top of, the overwhelming needlessness of the war.

To not at the very least acknowledge this fact, historical and Google-wise speaking, is to demonstrate ignorance of the entire situation. Because ultimately, these small "good" things are in reality just a lessening of the overhwelming bad, too much of which we are responsible for.

I'm not saying don't appreciate the good (and this goes for Inca Nitta too), I'm just saying that if you're going to do so, make sure you also acknowledge the true depth of pain and fear that accompanies it, and thus usually, completely obliterates any appreciation for it.

Personally, I don't think one has truly lived until they've experienced, with others, the witness of the fear of death, and death itself, in the worst way possible.

This video shows only the witnessess. Easy to dismiss.
wZUN-iu0tEg
The tears of the children fall upon my heart. When the tears dry, my heart breaks, like the dry earth after the rain dries up.

Imagine being those witnesses. Think body parts. Loved ones in one moment, pieces of them in the next.

Belief in God or not, the intolerability of the situation is the same, especially when unexpected. If you've experienced this you understand it. NOTHING can compensate fort the moment. It is proof that there is no God, or at the very least, that the God of Love that exists is evil in a way that you cannot comprehend.

And worse...
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." -Joseph Stalin

Each of the nearly million Iraqi deaths that we are responsible for, fundamentally negatively affect an entire family at best, and destroys their lives entirely at worst. Not to mention all those maimed and wounded who don't have access to rehabilitation and artificial limbs, health care, etc.

And those most in support of the "war" here at home are not even taking care of our own vets on that front, legislatively speaking.

If you're going to mention what's good, please make sure to acknowledge that it's on top of what's bad before doing so, so that we know that you appreciate the context it's in.

Because I'm convinced, if you truly understood the depth of the context of agreed upon evil at play, there would be no argument.

-Patrick

[Daniel]

Great post Patrick!

There is something else to consider here, and that is the millions and millions of dollars that have simply disappeared into thin air, funds which were to go to the building of schools, roads etc.

This is what I don't understand. And this is what make me shake my head. There seems to be the assumption by conservatives (which got us into trouble in the first place) that the US will charge into another country, bomb the hell out of it and then build some stuff and all will be right with the world. We get to pat ourselves on the back: gee what great people we are. We built a school.

Too bad we destroyed everything first. Too bad we let Bagdad's museum with thousands of years of artifacts get looted. Too bad we didn't provide security from the get go. Too bad whole stockhouses of weapons simply disappeared. Too bad Rummy failed at his job - war done on the cheap- when generals told him that he needed a much greater force to keep and maintain security- and the boys and girls in Iraq are paying for his gross- and I mean gross- mismanagement (and didn't he get a medal for that?). Too bad it took over a year to get body armor- and many still don't have it. Too bad the vehicles our forces drive don't protect them from roadside bombs. Too bad that the whole thing's has been one fiasco after another. Too bad that those coming back aren't getting the care they need and deserve.

Ah....but hey ...they built a school. Yeah rah! I'm so happy for the kids who get to go to it. It will be nice to know that the girls won't have any of the freedoms that they had before. They'll be shrouded in black from head to to. Wow! That's progress, isn't it? And oh....most of the teachers and professionals have left the country, but that doens't matter, does it?

Too bad that the various factions are pitted against each other over control of the oil supply . Too bad that we are there in the first place because we run our SUV's off of the stuff. If we used a different source or energy, we wouldn't be having this 'discussion'. Remember this Miss Progo the next time you drive to the Mall.

As they say: context is everything.

It's Christmas morning as I write. I pray that peace come to Irag and and Afganistan. But let us not forget the words of Gandhi and King: Peace will not come at the end of gun.

Joseph Biden and others- in my view- are correct. Our invading Irag is the worst mistake in foreign policy since the founding of country. It will have global and long term consequences- aside from the fact that democracy is not something that can be imposed- it has to come from within. And the building of a school won't 'prettify' that fact. Touting that accomplishment is like making pretty pink clouds out of the blood of the many- and growing- dead.

[paul]

You must be feeling a bit beat up? I'm sorry, I'm certain it's no ones intent. You seem a convservative thinker? I think you might find the link that Steven posted is a good one then because Andrew Sullivan is a conservative thinker. You are right, there is nothing wrong with opposing ways of looking at a thing, the tricky thing sometimes is finding what is real since we cannot always 'be there.' If you want a thorough scholarly treatment on propaganda, you might consider "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky.

I read this thread and got to thinking about wars and governments. I remembered the story in the bible when the Jewish people purportedly decided they wanted a "king." Here's what God is said to have replied:

"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

Not much has changed, eh? Our government is supposedly "of the people, by the people and for the people...." So, the decision is yours. You are the "queen/king." You have unlimited resources (i.e., the American tax payer). What would you do and why? When I think of it that way, I cannot easily commit my nation to war. Why do you trust those who have commited us to war? How have you substantiated their claims? Rebuilding what we destroyed doesn't justify our destroying it in the first place, so one has to determine the real reasons behind the destruction, the killing before we can argue justification.

[Progo35]

Ah....but hey ...they built a school. Yeah rah! I'm so happy for the kids who get to go to it. It will be nice to know that the girls won't have any of the freedoms that they had before. They'll be shrouded in black from head to to. Wow! That's progress, isn't it? And oh....most of the teachers and professionals have left the country, but that doens't matter, does it?

How does the opportunity to go to school contribute to the opression you mention? Isn't education the quickest way out of oppression? Statistics indicate that this is so. If women here didn't have any access to an education, I hope that we would all blow a gasket. While building a school does not make the war okay...you seem to be bashing the school itself and connecting it with things that were problems long before we got there-if they have to wear a burkah, isn't it better that they were it in a school building than in their homes all day long? Too bad that the various factions are pitted against each other over control of the oil supply . Too bad that we are there in the first place because we run our SUV's off of the stuff. If we used a different source or energy, we wouldn't be having this 'discussion'. Remember this Miss Progo the next time you drive to the Mall. As they say: context is everything.

Daniel: your post connotes a presumption that I, a greedy conservative, drive my SUV or car around town whenever the opportunity presents itself, so that I can sate my desire for material posessions at the mall. Well, I have news for you:

I DON'T DRIVE. I don't give a shit about oil. I probably have the smallest carbon footprint of all of you, and by the way: I have very, very little money of my own. Like most other people, I don't have unlmited funds to spend at the mall. So, stop making assumptions about me!

It's Christmas morning as I write. I pray that peace come to Irag and and Afganistan. But let us not forget the words of Gandhi and King: Peace will not come at the end of gun.

I do, to, and agree with Gandi. My only point in posting the story was to recognize that Iraq had major problems before we went in-I'm not defending the president or Congress-I'm just considering the fact that despite all the horrible things that have gone on in Iraq, perhaps we have done some good. Maybe. Somewhere. And, as I said, I don't see why I should trust the NY times reporting on these matters any more than I should trust Rush Limbaugh's. What reason do I have to trust the NY Times more than the president of our country? What have they done to earn such a measure of trust?

By the way, Steven-your comment about a "good war" strikes me as being taken from TR's war-mongering statements in the early twentieth century: "This country needs a good war." As Samuel Clemens said, this was "clearly insane," and if you think that I'm in for that line of thinking, than I feel really sorry for giving you that impression.
Joseph Biden and others- in my view- are correct. Our invading Irag is the worst mistake in foreign policy since the founding of country. It will have global and long term consequences- aside from the fact democracy is not some that can be imposed. And the building of a school won't 'prettify' that fact. Touting that accomplishment is like making pretty pink clouds out of the blood of the many- and growing- dead.

I would like to say this now: I DON'T LIKE THE WAR. I think that war stinks, but since we're there now, I hope that we don't pull out and leave Iraq in the midst of a viscious civil war-especially if we helped create it. That's what I'm saying. Now that we're there, I don't want as to go running from the country, only to leave it worse off than we found it. If we pull out right now, I'm afraid that this might happen. It happened in Rwanda when the Belgiums colonized the country, used the Tutsis to run it, and then gave power to the Hutus when they left. Prior to their arival, there was no division of Tutsis and Hutus. If we've done something similar in Iraq, then I think that the least we can do is stick around to counteract our own actions. So, all I'm really intending to say is that we need to think very carefully before we pull out-we can't just pick up and go, which is what some anti war people seem to be suggesting. I'm all for ending the war, but if we leave the country in ruins and we contributed to that, than we will have even more blood on our hands than we do now.

[inca nitta]

Progo,

Excellent response to this thread. You seem to have an amazing way to stand your grounds. I am thankful to you for bringing up Rwanda conflict. I have totally forgotten about that. Perhaps, we all can learn lessons from it, and use our greater wisdom, when analyzing what is happening in Iraq, right now.

I remember somebody brought up Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq: I find that the relationships between these groups of people when Saddam (a Sunni) was in power is parallel to the relationshps between Whites and Blacks in South Africa during the apartheid; a minority held extreme political power and used that power to oppress overwhelming majority, by treating them like second class citizens.

And Happy Holidays to everybody!

[antonyh]

Dr. Martin Luther King against the Vietnam War

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/mlkbeyondvietnam2.jpg

"As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent...

In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land...

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers...

I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries...

The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. *Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies.* What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts...

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition...

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war...

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

Happy Holidays.

[inca nitta]

I wouldn't quite put Vietnam and Iraq on the same board. Surely, it both involved US troops but the motives and the issues were different. Vietnam came as a result of the Cold War, due to the emergence of having a Communist superpowers of Soviet Union and China, while Iraq either came out as a result of the emergence of pervaisive Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups in the Middle East, or because of having fertile oil reserves, there. I remember that the US didn't want any products from Vietnam back then, like, there was no oil, let alone anything else.

Given the fact that we don't have such a powerful political adversary as Russia and China were back then, I highly doubt that the things will turn out for us in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan, as it did with Vietnam 30 years ago.

Inca

[Progo35]

The problem is, such comparisons do not solve the problem. What are we going to do? How is the country going to plan to get out of there effectively? How can we minimize damage inflicted by our forces in Iraq and bolster the good? These questions must be answered directly by supporters and opposers of the war.

[antonyh]

I wouldn't quite put Vietnam and Iraq on the same board. Surely, it both involved US troops but the motives and the issues were different. Vietnam came as a result of the Cold War, due to the emergence of having a Communist superpowers of Soviet Union and China, while Iraq either came out as a result of the emergence of pervaisive Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups in the Middle East, or because of having fertile oil reserves, there. I remember that the US didn't want any products from Vietnam back then, like, there was no oil, let alone anything else.

Given the fact that we don't have such a powerful political adversary as Russia and China were back then, I highly doubt that the things will turn out for us in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan, as it did with Vietnam 30 years ago.

Inca

Dearest Inca and Progo. King's speech was not offered in an attempt to compare Vietnam with Iraq. It was offered to show how Dr. King applied non-violence to the situation of war in his own time. Ideas like...

1) Violence never solves anything (as Daniel stated above)
2) That our government continues to be the worlds great purveyor of violence.
3) That our loyalty to a system of ethics deeper than nationalism requires us to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy". We need to know them and hear their broken cries.
4) We need to recognize the danger, violence and evil in the military industrial complex.
5) We need to recognize that we have destroyed Iraq's families and towns, the most cherished institutions of any civilization.
6) We need to understand why terrorists rise up against our oppression and understand their feelings while not condoning their actions. We need to understand why WE have pressed them to their violence.
7) We must understand that we are creating a new generations of enemies against the United States.
8) We must acknowledge that we have made peaceful revolution impossible.
9) We must recognize that we are a "thing-oriented" society not a "people-oriented" society.

Read the speech with an open heart.

[antonyh]

The problem is, such comparisons do not solve the problem. What are we going to do? How is the country going to plan to get out of there effectively? How can we minimize damage inflicted by our forces in Iraq and bolster the good? These questions must be answered directly by supporters and opposers of the war.

I suspect that the situation that has been created by our occupation of Iraq can never be solved by our ongoing occupation of Iraq. Do you really think that by staying there we are going to restrain the forces at work there? Do you really think that our national security is enhanced by occupying an Islamic nation? As Daniel put it, the Tornado is coming.

We have a little well timed news of progress for the holidays. But as people have cautioned on this thread, it is most likely a manipulative mirage.

[inca nitta]

Dearest Inca and Progo. King's speech was not offered in an attempt to compare Vietnam with Iraq. It was offered to show how Dr. King applied non-violence to the situation of war in his own time. Ideas like...

1) Violence never solves anything (as Daniel stated above)
2) That our government continues to be the worlds great purveyor of violence.
3) That our loyalty to a system of ethics deeper than nationalism requires us to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy". We need to know them and hear their broken cries.
4) We need to recognize the danger, violence and evil in the military industrial complex.
5) We need to recognize that we have destroyed Iraq's families and towns, the most cherished institutions of any civilization.
6) We need to understand why terrorists rise up against our oppression and understand their feelings while not condoning their actions. We need to understand why WE have pressed them to their violence.
7) We must understand that we are creating a new generations of enemies against the United States.
8) We must acknowledge that we have made peaceful revolution impossible.
9) We must recognize that we are a "thing-oriented" society not a "people-oriented" society.

Read the speech with an open heart.

Antony,

I never had any grudges against Dr. King's speech that you've listed, and my previous post was not about it, at all. It's just I observed that these days Iraq is being compared to Vietnam SO OFTEN everywhere, that I felt I had to say something about it.

The points you mentioned above are very logical and I can understand better why you listed King's speech in the first place. I believe that every war diminishes the importance of nonviolence and peaceful coexistence of the people in the world. Perhaps, this is what you were trying to say, right?

[ladyinred]

Kara I agree with you all life is precious. You've seen things first hand being over in another country like Iraq. The American people bought into the lies of this war hook line and sinker and we tend to write off those Iraqi's killed as collateral damage.(Would we write off the civilians killed in 9/11 as collateral damage?)

I tend to see this as tragic for both sides, for our troops being over there and the Iraqi people. And then Bush and Cheny try to mislead the American people again into another war.While I don't blame the American people or the troops, the fact is that the longer this war goes on the more casualities will mount on both sides.

I've also seen the effects of war on my own family, my dad was never the same when he came back from 'nam and basically after that I had no dad. He basically drank and became an alcoholic and would never talk about it. But he suffered from PTSD and probably from exposure from chemicals such as agent orange and was exposed to radiation.

I personally will never trust any politician who all too eagerly sends our country into a war. I was particularly taken aback by the words of Bush which I read in the Weekly a couple of years back. "This war will go on no matter how much Iraqi and American blood is spilled." I thought that was a rather callous statement to say the least. This is also shocking I read where at least 120 vets are committing suicide a week, many are homeless. I also know there are many vets who do not support this war, does that mean they aren't patriotic? I'd say they don't want to fight any war that wouldn't be for any legitimate reasons.

And this is also a pretty personal issue with me, what do I tell my part Iranian niece when they talk about nuking Iran and she says , you mean they could kill my relatives over there?
You see I see both sides of the coin....especially when it does deal with my family. Guess what these people love their families just like we love ours. How do you think it impacts a mother who loses a child in a war. That mother grieves the loss of her child just as we grieved the loss of the innocent lives impacted by 9/11.What is the difference, only the nationality. Human beings are still human beings. I'd also like to add that growing up I really didn't know alot about the Vietnam war other than what I had heard, but after reading about it historically, I would not have supported it either. I read much the same as what Antonyh posted, I think our government was pretty inept in how it handled things to say the least.
Unfortunately, we tend to measure human casualities only in terms of deaths, many families like mine were torn apart because of the effects of war,just like many families in these countries will be affected for years to come. Poverty, birth defects,disease, the orphaned and other factors need to be taken into consideration:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/155046/944,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUL20060122&articleId=1777
I also take issue with people who naively support this president and this war. I guess for people who are far removed from it's reality and effects, perhaps they don't think about the costs or see the broken lives and after affects.

7) We must understand that we are creating a new generations of enemies against the United States. And will we be any safer as a result?
I also used to be reluctant to support anti-war demonstrators, but from what I've read about the organizations, is not that they are against our troops but against the war and our foreign policies in these countries. Want to know what Iraqi veterans against the war have to say? http://www.ivaw.org/faq

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc5kdpoUF2g
Sounds like they verify alot of the stuff you all posted here.(Daniel,Kara, Antonyh Steve,Emproph.)

[Steven E. Webster]

The problem is, such comparisons do not solve the problem. What are we going to do? How is the country going to plan to get out of there effectively? How can we minimize damage inflicted by our forces in Iraq and bolster the good? These questions must be answered directly by supporters and opposers of the war.

Long before we entered this war, it was widely expressed by many of our political leaders that we should not enter a conflict with no "end game" plan. So here we are stuck with no end game plan--at least that's the implication of your statement above, Progo.

We left Viet Nam in a mess and in some disgrace, and yet Southeast Asia survives--it ain't been pretty, but no one seems to think it would have been better if we added more names to the black stone wall in Washington.

The arrogance of the leadership of the United States that got us into a war that we can't "win" is reflected in the idea that somehow we can continue to "flex our muscles" there and fix the problems we were part of creating.

I'm with Andrew Sullivan, a truly conservative approach would admit the limitations of our ability through military might alone to make the world over to suit our preferences. A truly conservative approach would not have gotten us into this mess in the first place---thus the term "neoconservative" to describe the pro-Iraq war faction in our leadership.

I think there are ways that we can improve the world through nonviolence, but I doubt that military might is the way to accomplish much of any good. I'm not a total pacifist. I believe there is a role for "police action" when international law is violated. I do not believe that we can war our way to lasting peace and a better world.

The vision of the neoconservatives is not conservative at all, but a dream of an American Empire where no one dare challenge the unilateral might of the United States. This is a vain dream that will not succeed, but will drive this country to ruin.

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

You know, throughout this entire discussion, these very important questions have been ignored:

1. You say that we could do something through pacifist action but do not articulate what that something is.

2. You say that we cannot win the war...which still doesn't articulate what, in your personal, enlightened opinion, we should do now-your opinion, aside from what the President and the army plans to do.

3. Instead of addressing what I'm getting at: the fact that you are calling for us to get out without saying how: you have turned my statement around to make a point about how the "neoconservatives" have handled the situation: since you argue that we should get out now, could you please weigh the consequences of that action and articulate how to get out safely? I'm asking you, not Congress. You say you know better in this matter, so please tell us your plan.

4. No one has yet answered my question about why I should trust the NY times more than the President. What have they done that makes them trustworthy? (I'm not looking for an assessment of how many times Bush has lied or not lied, I'm looking for an assessment of all the good things that the Times has done to bring true depictions of events to the public.)

Please answer these questions, otherwise, how can your statements improve our situation?

[antonyh]

Want to know what Iraqi veterans against the war have to say?

http://www.ivaw.org/faq

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

Wc5kdpoUF2g
Sounds like they verify alot of the stuff you all posted here.(Daniel,Kara, Antonyh Steve,Emproph.)

Thank you for these excellent links Ladyinred. Thank you for sharing your story.

[kara speltz]

could you please weigh the consequences of that action and articulate how to get out safely? I'm asking you, not Congress. You say you know better in this matter, so please tell us your plan.

4. No one has yet answered my question about why I should trust the NY times more than the President. What have they done that makes them trustworthy? (I'm not looking for an assessment of how many times Bush has lied or not lied, I'm looking for an assessment of all the good things that the Times has done to bring true depictions of events to the public.)

Please answer these questions, otherwise, how can your statements improve our situation?

Progo, you really make me laugh, literally. Why should you trust the NY Times more than the president? Well, let's see the president has been proven a liar about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi supposed connection with Al Queda. I think that's reason enough, not to mention all of the other lies Bush has told.

And as for my answer to your question how do I want us to get out of Iraq. Having been there twice since the war started, I want immediate withdrawal. And if you think keeping our soldiers there will stop chaos you fail to acknowledge that chaos has reigned in Iraq since our initial invasion.

We have a policy that deliberately keeps Iraq from creating anything outside of chaos. Just for example. After the first Iraqi war (where there was more extensive dropping of bombs than during the second war), it took Sadamn just 6 months to get the power back on full time in Baghdad, and that was under severe restrictions on shipments to Iraq by the UN.

It's been how many years now since we first invaded Iraq? And still for some reason power in Baghdad and throughout Iraq is only on (at best) some 50% of the time!!!!!

There is no mail service; no real phone service; no way for people to communicate with one another. You know why? Because we don't want the Iraqis communicating with each other.

So I am calling as are most Iraqis these days for immediate withdrawal. We can't continue to let the fox run the hen house and claim we need the fox to protect the hens from the other foxes. It is the US that is the greatest danger to Iraq. Not Al Queda, Not Iran, Not Syria, but America.

One additional point I will make here is that until those of us who are committed to peace are willing to place ourselves in jeopardy, for the price of peace then nothing will change. Dan Berrigan said it most beautifully some 40 years ago during the Trial of the Catonsville 9,

""We have assumed the name of peacemakers," he wrote long ago in No Bars to Manhood, "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

[Daniel]

You know, throughout this entire discussion, these very important questions have been ignored:

1. You say that we could do something through pacifist action but do not articulate what that something is.

2. You say that we cannot win the war...which still doesn't articulate what, in your personal, enlightened opinion, we should do now-your opinion, aside from what the President and the army plans to do.

3. Instead of addressing what I'm getting at: the fact that you are calling for us to get out without saying how: you have turned my statement around to make a point about how the "neoconservatives" have handled the situation: since you argue that we should get out now, could you please weigh the consequences of that action and articulate how to get out safely? I'm asking you, not Congress. You say you know better in this matter, so please tell us your plan.

4. No one has yet answered my question about why I should trust the NY times more than the President. What have they done that makes them trustworthy? (I'm not looking for an assessment of how many times Bush has lied or not lied, I'm looking for an assessment of all the good things that the Times has done to bring true depictions of events to the public.)

Please answer these questions, otherwise, how can your statements improve our situation?


In regard to the New York Times, which you seem to have a particular dislike for, I posted two links, which I include below..



Pentagon Says Services in Iraq Are Stagnant
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/wa...9military.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/wo...t/16najaf.html
Iraqi City Poised to Become Hub of Shiite Power


Why were these two article's included? The answer: the content. In the first article, the Times reports that a recent assessment by the Pentagon shows that..

Despite a significant reduction in violence in Iraq over the past three months, the Iraqi government has made little headway in improving the delivery of electricity, health care and other essential services, a new Pentagon report said Tuesday.

This alone brings some perspective to the cheerleading of ain't it grand that a school was built.

The second article is about how the situation in Iraq may be affected because of a change in the balance of power. Again- this is not an op-ed. It's 'hard' reporting.

Now. I'm surprised at you Progo. How is it that a matter of such importance, and we're talking about a war here, is framed in terms of President vs NYTimes? You shouldn't be trusting ANYBODY, but, instead, doing the work of reading and researching these matters from a variety of sources.

How about it? Did you check these new items out elsewhere, as in these sources?

http://www.theolympian.com/news/story/303909.html

or

http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/368131.html

...which notes that..

WASHINGTON -- Despite significant security gains in much of Iraq, nothing has changed within Iraq's political leadership to guarantee sustainable peace, a Pentagon report released Tuesday found.

The congressionally mandated quarterly report suggests that the drop in violence won't hold unless Iraq's central government passes key legislation, improves the way it manages its security forces and finds a way to reconcile the country's competing sects. It said none of those steps has been taken.

"Although security gains, local accommodation and progress against the flow of foreign fighters and lethal aid into Iraq have had a substantial effect, more needs to be done to foster national, 'top-down' reconciliation to sustain the gains," according to the report.

or

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq19dec19,1,2848223.story

...which notes...

The report argues that the gains are not irreversible, and it casts a pessimistic light on the ability of the central government to meet many of the legislative goals set by U.S. officials. The report calls the lack of progress disappointing and says failures are hindering reconciliation between warring sects within Iraq.

"Although security gains . . . have had a substantial effect, more needs to be done to foster national 'top-down' reconciliation to sustain these gains," the report says.

Equally troubling, the report raises new doubts about the Iraqi security forces, saying the government's efforts to rapidly expand the size of the army and police are taxing the abilities of Iraqis and Americans to train new recruits. The number of Iraqi units leading military operations is increasing only slowly.

Stephen is right: the President and his buddy's got into this war without much coherent planning.

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2191317,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50730-2004May23.html

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_plan_111804,00.html

which notes..

The four chiefs of the armed services testified to the House Armed Services Committee that while they had adequately planned for combat operations, as evidenced by the quick advance to Baghdad, the U.S. government as a whole failed to put enough effort into planning for the peace.

And...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/04/niraq104.xml

which notes...

A leaked internal Army report has delivered an unprecedented attack on the planning and execution of the war in Iraq.

Frontline: Our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq
The document, which openly condemns British and US foreign policy, says that "leaders should not start an operation without thinking through the options and implications of their plans".

The leaked document claims the faillure in Iraq is due in part to a lack of understanding of Arab culture.

It claims that widespread planning failures in the post-war phase led to the peace in Iraq being lost by September 2003, within the first 100 days of the occupation.

The report, marked "restricted", adds that many senior officers now believe that the Government has developed a "bureaucratic approach to problem solving" and is "no longer capable" of running large scale military operations such as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 16-page document describes how the Iraq campaign was undermined by a lack of planning, resources, funding and intelligence.

Your questions put the shoe on the wrong foot. That is to say, the persons responsible for getting our country into this mess seem to be quite content on letting the next adminstration sort out the mess- as if it can. This should answer question number 2. The President plans to hand the matter off. I have to hand it to the guy: his surge, while bringing a certain amount of 'security, has done NOTHING to correct matters as far as the Iraqi government is concerned, but it will give him enough cover to get out of office with his ego intact. Seems pretty cynical to me. What should he be doing? Perhaps listening to those like Joseph Biden, who has proposed that the country be annexed into three parts. But the Pres is deaf to anything a Democrat has to say.

More than a few talking heads have noted that the minute we start pulling back (and it looks like we are) things are going to go from bad to worse.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-wean26dec26,0,170440.story?coll=la-home-world

SABA AL BOR, IRAQ -- It started with a broken generator at a water pumping station. Local officials did what they usually do when an important piece of machinery needs repairs: They turned to the U.S. forces stationed in town.

But this time, the answer was "No." The time had come for officials here to rely on the central government in Baghdad for such things.

"It's a rather new concept, empowering local leaders to take charge of their leaders," said Maj. Randall Baucom of the 1st Brigade of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, as he recalled the June generator incident. "But unless these projects are vested at the national level, you can build schools but there are no teachers. You can build clinics but there are no nurses."

U.S. officials call the process "transitioning." Others might call it weaning. Whatever the name, it means the same thing: nudging Iraqi officials to stop turning to U.S. forces for services and logistics such as fuel deliveries and clinic construction, and to begin working through the relevant ministries in Baghdad.

As noted above, that the Iraqi Government can't even seem to find a time to meet with each other or how to govern themselves. We are nudging them to get their act together and take care of themselves by saying 'no'. Sounds like a pullout to me.

How are they going to be able to help themselves when they all hate each other's guts and their ancient disputes have been resurrected curtesy of our invasion?

Maybe you could answer that question?

Oh yeah..Saddam was bad guy. We all know that. But our actions have taken Iraq from the frying pan into the fire.

And you still 'trust' this President? It boggles the mind.

[antonyh]

One additional point I will make here is that until those of us who are committed to peace are willing to place ourselves in jeopardy, for the price of peace then nothing will change. Dan Berrigan said it most beautifully some 40 years ago during the Trial of the Catonsville 9,

""We have assumed the name of peacemakers," he wrote long ago in No Bars to Manhood, "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

Kara, that stings because it is true. Beyond disciplined participation with the anti-war movement in the marches, what can we do?

Chicago's anti-war movement has really gone through interesting phases. The first march after the occupation of Iraq resulted in mass arrests. It really ticked off the mayor and he started refusing permits for the marches. The anti-war movement started just marching without a permit and commenced legal action against the city for suppressing their free speech. Then the city rescinded and issued permits but made sure there was a vast police presence on the route. So basically the marchers were told with legions of riot police, "Make one step off the permit route and we'll clobber you on the head with a billy club and drag you to jail". Now the media is losing interest in the marches. As Daniel alluded too above, you could have 7,000 people marching on the streets, but the media can ignore you.

So with police and city control combined with media disinterest, how do you get the message across?

y39yIVEsG6E

[Progo35]

Daniel:

The reason that I mentioned "the president vs. the NY times" is because in one of your responses, you posted 5 articles from the NY times. No other source. Just the NY times. Since you say that I should do my own research, I'm assuming that those articles were posted for that purpose.

[Daniel]

Daniel:

The reason that I mentioned "the president vs. the NY times" is because in one of your responses, you posted 5 articles from the NY times. No other source. Just the NY times. Since you say that I should do my own research, I'm assuming that those articles were posted for that purpose.

What kind of crap is this? No wonder you drive your professor's nuts.

Throwing it back on me with a big ol' huge cop-out? You have a lot of nerve. You make accusations, demand answers, and now you're running for cover.

Hello! You haven't addressed anything of substance here posted by myself and others.

Just why are you here? To get some strokes from your fellow 'victims' the homosexuals?

That's pretty sad. I hope and pray that you get some help.

Me? I've had enough!

The ignore feature is on.

[ladyinred]

Progo why should we trust a President who has no regard for the safety of our troops or other human life? As I said earlier he can't wait to start another war with Iran. Also guys this will shock you too,I read where the body counts in Iraq are not 100,000 but more like 650,000 on up.

Quote by JFK "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people …The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men. … Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. "

--John F.Kennedy

The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

-– Mark Twain

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government… The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few to ride them.


-– Thomas Jefferson These were taken from the articles below.

[ladyinred]

A few interesting articles:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Valenzuela_Exploitation1.htm
http://valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com/2004/01/exploitation-of-american-soldier-part.html also the treatment of our vets:http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121407N.shtml
Antonyh, I think you will find these interesting because of what they say about the military industrial complex:Excerpted from last URL:
We only need to see how the biggest, and perhaps only winner of the Vietnam War, the military-industrial complex (MIC), enriched itself tremendously through years of warfare, death and destruction, using soldiers to carry out its assembly-line, profit-making scheme of immoral business ventures born out of the misery of millions that fattened up shareholder wealth and ingrained into government the growing and unfettered power of the MIC. Through the millions of tons of bombs dropped, instruments of war produced (helicopters, tanks, munitions, etc..) and the perpetual stream of profit from waging such a prolonged war the MIC’s power grew. Today the MIC and government are one and the same, and wars are but part of the business of making profit. This is a reality we have been made blind to.

Unfortunately, our soldiers are the mechanisms by which the MIC, the Leviathan and the government elites unleash and spread their evil wrath onto the world. Soldiers have become pawns, the instruments that pull triggers, aim weapons, push buttons and destroy infrastructure, the human brain necessary to operate the MIC’s collection of apparatuses of destruction and death. They are expendable, of course, easily replaced by the next wave of caste or government instituted drafts. War is a boom to the MIC, of huge importance to its oligarchy. There is vast profit and power to be made in war, just ask today’s defense contractors, and the biggest war profiteer in the Iraq war, Halliburton, of Dick Cheney fame.

These entities survive and prosper by manufacturing an unending flood of instruments of death, by supplying the vast resources necessary to conduct war. And the stream of these products smeared in blood must never be allowed to run dry which is why blood must continue to be spilled. Machines of war must be created, used and destroyed, only to be manufactured again and again, shipped out to be used and recycled in a vicious circle of malevolent profit making. Think about it, who really profits and gains from war? It is today but a business to the United Corporations of America, and the reason fear has been metastasized into our psyches during the last couple of years. Chasing ambiguous boogie-men, today’s version of evildoer, assures the Leviathan of perpetual war, hence perpetual profit and exploitation. Enemies must exist in order to continue building the war machine, and fear is the tool the oligarchy has created that affects our emotions of insecurity, thereby making us passive citizens following Bush and his cabal of charlatans from war"

Excerpted from first URL:
"Tens of thousands of men and women trained for and expecting open desert combat were thrust into a guerilla war very few were ready or prepared to fight in. Their training in instruments of war having been deemed useless in guerilla urban warfare, many have struggled to understand an enemy that sees in the American Soldier invasion, occupation, exploitation and humiliation. As a result, more than 455 have died and more than 10,000 have been evacuated due to various injuries and maladies. These brave soldiers were inserted into poorly trained urban policing roles, -- far removed from their particular niche training – into environments they did not understand, a culture alien to most and a language unlike anything they had ever seen. Trained in the traditional roles of war, our soldiers have instead had to adapt, evolve and learn as they go, in a war none of them asked for, for a purpose that has nothing to do with defending our freedom and liberty. Daily they are shot, maimed and scorned at, unable to discern friend from foe, welcomed not with roses but with RPGs and roadside bombs. Securing the peace has meant street warfare and Iraqi dehumanization, death and destruction, alienation and growing hatred. Gaining hearts and minds has been a failure, instead being turned by Bush into into saving face and covering one’s ass.

The Hummers that transport our troops are without bomb resistant armor. Kevlar vests are in short supply – more than 40,000 are needed for soldiers patrolling cities and towns. Parents back home have had to buy these vests out of their own pockets to protect their sons and daughters. Many soldiers are dehydrated, safe drinking water is scarce. Many have traded their M-16 for enemy AK-47s because of the former’s tendency to jam on a consistent basis. Prolonged tours of duty have been extended to troops whose time to return home has arrived and gone. The “leaders” at the top, in order to fulfill self-defeating ideologies, and in order to not be looked on as fools, refused to increase troop strength when military officers knew it would be necessary to help secure the peace. As a result, fewer troops mean less security and more mistakes. But when the reputation of those at the top is at stake, when they refuse to acknowledge mistakes, cannon fodder troops are but insignificant statistics that are seen as lifeless drones, without wives, husbands, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers and friends. They are expendable entities


This is what life is like for our sons and daughters in Iraq. As a result, moral is low, AWOLs are numerous and suicides increasing. The reality is that most troops do not know what it is they are fighting for, and the only discernable objective seen is the pursuit of black blood, American hegemony and strategic base allocation. Protecting the numerous Bush crony war profiteers, those reaping billions in reconstruction money, is also a central command given to our soldiers. Destruction of a nation, after all, is an extremely profitable business venture, especially to friends of the administration.

We have destroyed a nation only to rebuild it once again, granting it and the profiteers the many funds desperately needed to reconstruct the fabric of our own nation. Our social fabric rots, its funds disappearing away like footprints on a wet beach, sacrificed to the war profiteers, leaving us all behind as waves of greed return to the Leviathan. Pilfering our wages and our soldiers for their own fraudulent purposes, and we dare raise not our voices. The systemic larceny of both Iraqi and our country’s financial and resource assets continues unabated, and the exploitation of our greatest assets – our men and women – has become a national travesty. "




Note these articles were written back in 2003, and 2004. But it says from the onset of the war things were poorly handled

[Steven E. Webster]

3. Instead of addressing what I'm getting at: the fact that you are calling for us to get out without saying how: you have turned my statement around to make a point about how the "neoconservatives" have handled the situation: since you argue that we should get out now, could you please weigh the consequences of that action and articulate how to get out safely? I'm asking you, not Congress. You say you know better in this matter, so please tell us your plan.


Well, dear Progo, it appears we got into Iraq with no plan. Now we're stuck in Iraq with no plan. And you demand we provide a plan to get out!? You think just staying there is a plan? (Apparently, yes.)

Frankly, the way it should work, dear Progo, is that OUR government should set a POLICY that we will be out of Iraq, and we should allow our military to draw up the plans for withdrawal. I'm for getting out as fast as they can with the minimum number of U.S. & Iraqi casualties. Military planners will have their hands full figuring out the details, and I know it won't be easy. Let's provide the funds to allow them that. Our government sets policy and our military plans the implementation of that policy. (Too bad Bush and his neoconservative allies would not listen to military planners. They arrogantly thought the U.S. could do the job cheaper and with less troops than did our military planners).

Beyond that I think we will do no good interfereing unilaterally in Iraqi affairs. Maybe the United Nations can facilitate a meeting of regional governments (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan) to bring a peaceful resolution to affairs in Iraq.

You see, dear Progo, I'm for the rule of law, not the kind of immoral lawlessness we see from the Bush administration. There is a place for the United Nations--we need international law. We can't simply dictate to the world because we think we are so powerful. Someday we won't be so powerful and someone else will be dictating to us and we'll wish there was international law then. We should put our power and influence behind international law while we still have power and influence.

Maybe, Progo, you should get over your narrow-minded prejudices and read the New York Times once in a while--you might be suprised, there might be something worthwhile in it.

Steven Webster

[ladyinred]

Here it is folks Iraqi death toll over 655,000 as of Oct ,2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
updated as of 2007 over 1,200,000 Iraqi deaths according to recent estimates:http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

[antonyh]

Antonyh, I think you will find these interesting because of what they say about the military industrial complex:Excerpted from last URL:
Note these articles were written back in 2003, and 2004. But it says from the onset of the war things were poorly handled

That was a chilling excerpt. I had posted a link to the trailer of the movie Why We Fight. I discovered that you can watch the entire movie on youtube. Here are the links to the four parts:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYeuzG24mo

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV6cSUyeNQA

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi6mMFifMQY

Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afBMu6gGdK8

[Progo35]

(You see, dear Progo, I'm for the rule of law, not the kind of immoral lawlessness we see from the Bush administration. There is a place for the United Nations--we need international law. We can't simply dictate to the world because we think we are so powerful. Someday we won't be so powerful and someone else will be dictating to us and we'll wish there was international law then. We should put our power and influence behind international law while we still have power and influence.

Maybe, Progo, you should get over your narrow-minded prejudices and read the New York Times once in a while--you might be suprised, there might be something worthwhile in it.

-What "narrow minded prejudices" would those be, Steven? Acknowledging various facts in play with the war? That doesn't seem fair.

-I do read the NY Times, I simply DISAGREE WITH THEM on many things, and thus don't completely trust their coverage of events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Progo35
Daniel:

The reason that I mentioned "the president vs. the NY times" is because in one of your responses, you posted 5 articles from the NY times. No other source. Just the NY times. Since you say that I should do my own research, I'm assuming that those articles were posted for that purpose.

What kind of crap is this? No wonder you drive your professor's nuts.

That's very nice, Daniel. I feel edified now. Thank you for taking time out of this thread's discussion to trivialize the rampant prejudice that I have had to deal with/twisting the knife in regard to the one personal issue with a prof that I've described: I definitely feel motivated to change!

Throwing it back on me with a big ol' huge cop-out? You have a lot of nerve. You make accusations, demand answers, and now you're running for cover.

What cover /cop out is that?

Hello! You haven't addressed anything of substance here posted by myself and others.

Okay:

These are the arguments I've seen since asking for solutions on getting out:
1. We can't fix Iraq, we have to get out now: I haven't responded to this yet because I'm still deciding on how to interpret and respond to that argument.

2. The Iraq government has made little, if any, progress in stablizing itself: This is something that most people I have listened to on both the conservative and liberal side agree on. For instance, Bill O Reilly's opinion of the Iraqi government's actions thus far concur with the NY Times. He also said that if he could turn back the clock, he would, if he were in charge, not go into Iraq. So, even parties who have extreme disagreements with one another's worldviews concur on that point.

3. It's so bad that we need to leave right now: I simply question whether leaving right now, at this moment, is good for the Iraqi people. If Bush didn't have a plan before going in there, shouldn't the war's opponents avoid this pitfall in planning when and how to leave Iraq?

I shouldn't trust anyone, but should make up my own mind: That is precisely my point. If we can't trust our president, than we definitely can't trust the NY Times. To me, it's like the position that if you can't trust your husband, parents or best friend, you can't trust anyone and have to make up your own mind on issues. (Which, I hasten to remind everyone: I haven't necessarily done in the issue of the war: the thread started when I posted the question of whether or not such things were a good reason for entering Iraq.) When people have taken positions on this thread and elsewhere, I have tried to play the devil's advocate for my own edification, which, to me, should be part of gathering information for any position. Very often, the positions posted on various issues tend to be more "liberal" than "conservative," and being the devil's advocate means taking a more "conservative" position, if those labels are in play.

Just why are you here? To get some strokes from your fellow 'victims' the homosexuals?

That's pretty sad. I hope and pray that you get some help.

Me? I've had enough!

Why is it that so often, when I stick to a belief that makes certain people upset, my mentioning my disability is attacked? The statement above is off-topic in the extreme as a personal put-down. We're talking here about the war, not LGBT, or even minority, issues.

[ladyinred]

Should we trust Bush?http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle/2

[Steven E. Webster]

Progo,

By "narrow-minded prejudices" I was referring in particular to your prejudgement of any information coming from the New York Times as being unreliable, while at the same time asserting that information coming from President Bush should be relied upon.

You need to get past your pre-judgements in order to consider the possibility that the New York Times might be giving you factual information and the President might be presenting rosy scenarios and falsehoods.

Here's a link to a blog by a self-identified conservative, Andrew Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/myths-about-ira.html

(I happen to like Andrew Sullivan--I disagree with his "conservative" views on most economic matters, but I find many of his other views pretty intelligent.)

Now I think another prejudice is one that thinks the world can be so neatly divided into "liberal" and "conservative" and equating those labels with "good vs. bad." There are good and bad people at all points along the spectrum.

I don't see what the labels "liberal" and "conservative" have to do with your argument that we should "stay the course" in Iran.

Steven Webster

[antonyh]

This small group of neoconservatives foolishly believed that this war would advance U.S. interests, but instead it has destabilized the Middle East, raised the specter of wider war in the future and has weakened and damaged our military besides.


I found this useful website about the neoconservative architecture of power behind/with the war. Here is the stated purpose of the site:

Right Web, founded in 2003, is a program of the International Relations Center (IRC) that monitors the efforts of individuals, organizations, and governments to promote hardline foreign and defense policies with a special focus on the "war on terror."

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/

One of the points that the movie Why We Fight makes is that there is a fourth player in our foreign/defense policy making: the think tanks. Now it is the synergy of Congress, the military, the defense contractors and the think tanks.

I'm curious why you think this is a small group?

[ladyinred]

Frankly before the war when they were saying let the UN handle it I agreed. I was not really for the war in the first place and I was rather suspicious of Bush's sincerity.

[ladyinred]

Iraq today: http://www.counterpunch.org/ Daniel's post:WASHINGTON -- Despite significant security gains in much of Iraq, nothing has changed within Iraq's political leadership to guarantee sustainable peace, a Pentagon report released Tuesday found.

The congressionally mandated quarterly report suggests that the drop in violence won't hold unless Iraq's central government passes key legislation, improves the way it manages its security forces and finds a way to reconcile the country's competing sects. It said none of those steps has been taken.

"Although security gains, local accommodation and progress against the flow of foreign fighters and lethal aid into Iraq have had a substantial effect, more needs to be done to foster national, 'top-down' reconciliation to sustain the gains," according to the rep
this article also goes more into depth about this.

[Progo35]

Progo,

By "narrow-minded prejudices" I was referring in particular to your prejudgement of any information coming from the New York Times as being unreliable, while at the same time asserting that information coming from President Bush should be relied upon.

I never said that, Steven. I said that there was no reason to trust the NY Times more than G. Bush. Basically, I'm saying that the NY Times, while it may communicate valuable info, has about as much reliability as you say the President has. I couldn't tell you whether or not the President is reliable because all I have to go on is conflicting media reports about what's going on over there.

You need to get past your pre-judgements in order to consider the possibility that the New York Times might be giving you factual information and the President might be presenting rosy scenarios and falsehoods.

I AM considering that possibility. All I did was not agree with your interpretation of some issues. In regard to the NY Times, I've stated why I don't like them on other threads, but I do read them and I don't think that they are "lying." I think that they're presenting what their editors perceive to be the facts, and I think that the President generally does that as well. The could both be wrong. Again, couldn't tell you.
Here's a link to a blog by a self-identified conservative, Andrew Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/myths-about-ira.html

(I happen to like Andrew Sullivan--I disagree with his "conservative" views on most economic matters, but I find many of his other views pretty intelligent.)

I am not going to say, "okay, you must be right" because a conservative said something that concurs with your interpretation of the facts we have been discussing, which goes to your comment below:

Now I think another prejudice is one that thinks the world can be so neatly divided into "liberal" and "conservative" and equating those labels with "good vs. bad." There are good and bad people at all points along the spectrum.

I agree.

I don't see what the labels "liberal" and "conservative" have to do with your argument that we should "stay the course" in Iran. Steven Webster

Steven, the term "neoconservative" have been repeatedly applied to those who support or have encouraged the war. So, it definitely has to do with this discussion. I'm not saying that the "conservative" or "liberal" position is always the same when it comes to these issues, I'm responding to your labels.

[ladyinred]

Hate to say it Progo but Bush is not exactly the epitome of morality. His actions speak louder than words

[ladyinred]

Hey Antonyh are we on the same page or what? Only I call them "nuke lovers" Probably supports their vision of armegeddon and the return of Christ to rapture them. Of course after reading up on them , I have a label for them. "Whacky" OOPS Did I say that? Religious ideology is not a good reason for going to war. Their views verge on genocidal. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4024
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/68540/,
http://www.populistamerica.com/fascism_rising
http://www.populistamerica.com/imperial_genocide_in_iraq

[Progo35]

LIR-when did I say that Bush was "the epitome of morality?"'
Steven-when you use labels and then decry them, you come off as a hypcrite, even if you aren't. "A silly, over-concerned liberal"? I never said that, either. Do you see yourself that way? Like I said, I couldn't say whether you are a "silly, over-concerned liberal"...you and I just disagree on how to consider both sides of an argument.


Frankly, some the things said in this thread have really hurt my feelings because of the assumptions they make, and because of the very personal shots some of them have been. I am not one of the "neo conservatives" that you speak of, I am not war mongering, and it is upsetting to have people insinuate that I am. Also, saying things like, "Does your disability prevent you from reading," "did you just come to get strokes from your fellow victims, the homosexuals" and "no wonder you drive your profs nuts" really, really hurt and I feel that they are totally unecessary. I didn't post this thread to hurt or insult anyone: I was just bringing up an issue.

[Steven E. Webster]

Progo,

The label "neoconservative" has a fairly definite meaning referring to a rather definite group of people.

Here is one source for understanding the term:

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

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" aren't very useful because they cover so much territory.

I don't equate all of the Christian Right with neoconservatives. In fact, neoconservatives may not be particularly religious at all. Not all Republicans are neoconservatives. I don't think Ron Paul would be considered a neoconservative. Maybe Huckabee isn't (I notice Huckabee has criticized Bush on the Iraq war).

I think the term "neoconservative" is useful in identifying one particular group on the right. I believe that they are the faction in our government most responsible for the war in Iraq, though not every supporter of the war is a neoconservative either.

One of the interesting facts about neoconservatives is that many of them were former leftists. However, it seems to me that they were not terribly democratic leftists, and that lack of respect for democracy seems to be one of the things that they carried with them in their migration from left to right.

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

Steven, please don't link a source for understanding the term and therby insult my intelligence: I understand what "neoconservative" refers to.

[Steven E. Webster]

Steven, please don't link a source for understanding the term and therby insult my intelligence: I understand what "neoconservative" refers to.

Progo,

You know, you are really difficult to communicate with. I was not trying to insult your intelligence, so please do not say that that was what I was doing.

I understood you to be saying that I was merely throwing the label "neoconservative" around as a meaningless put down. What I am trying to point out is that when I use the word "neoconservative" I do have a very specific philosophy and set of people in mind.

I think it was you, Progo, who insulted our intelligence by starting a thread titled "A good reason to go into Iraq." If you are still trying to convince us that we are in Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts, and doing the Lord's work there, you aren't getting very far.

Steven Webster

[ladyinred]

You do have varying factions of the right ,some are more extreme than others like the reconstructionists or dispensationalists

[ladyinred]

You do have varying factions of the right ,some are more extreme than others like the reconstructionists or dispensationalists,neocons would from what I read be more a part of the secular right.Conservatives don't scare me, it's the dominionists who do along with the neo conservatives

[ladyinred]

Another website:http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/index.htm

Quotes taken from the siteWhen people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." (2)

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity. War settles nothing." (3)

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." (4)

"If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government." (5)



Dwight D. Eisenhower

34th President of the United States

(1953-1961)

Now question Progo, if the war in Iraq is going so wonderfully how come so many of our troops are dissenting? Could it be that they feel they are being used and abused by the system? Would any of our politicians make the same sacrifices they ask of our troops? lip service and saying they support our troops, does not mean anything.
"US military officers take their loyalty oath to the Constitution -- not to the president, or even to Congress" http://www.populistamerica.com/laws_of_war_iraq

Yes, they may have volunteered for service, but does that mean that they are exploitable or should be?I've always said that if our country were attacked we would have the right to defend our country, but on what grounds did we invade Iraq, did they attack us? No man should be asked to lay down his life for a cause he does not feel is justified or for a war he doesn't believe should have been fought in the first place.Nor should he have to violate his own conscience to do so and die unneccessarily. It is unreasonable to ask people to make sacrifices for the unreasonable.Would you send your child off to fight in a war on such precarious grounds?

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's a quote from Andrew Sullivan:

I don't believe Iraq will be a minor issue in the coming election. It certainly shouldn't be. The burden of proof needs now to be overwhelmingly on those arguing against a swift withdrawal. Governing an ungovernable failed state for the indefinite future, when the U.S. is already facing the $32 trillion of extra debt president Bush has saddled us with in a scant seven years, is a luxury we cannot afford. Most Americans know this - most conservatives know this. The question is simply how vast and continuing will be the cost of denial.

I was struck in particular with this phrase: "The burden of proof needs now to be overwhelmingly on those arguing against a swift withdrawal."

Here's the link: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/myths-about-ira.html

Steven Webster

[antonyh]

Steven, please don't link a source for understanding the term and therby insult my intelligence: I understand what "neoconservative" refers to.

I thought the link was helpful in clarifying the term neoconservative. You're not the only one reading the thread :).

[antonyh]

I don't equate all of the Christian Right with neoconservatives. In fact, neoconservatives may not be particularly religious at all. Not all Republicans are neoconservatives. I don't think Ron Paul would be considered a neoconservative. Maybe Huckabee isn't (I notice Huckabee has criticized Bush on the Iraq war).

Thank you for the clarification. I think my "rant" about the Christian Fascists over reached (hence I deleted it). That said, what I think I was trying to convey is that there is an affinity between the neoconservatives and the religious right. Hugh Urban wrote and interesting piece called "America Left Behind" where he explores the affinity:

As a professor of comparative religion and cultural studies, I have long been fascinated by the strange intersections between religion, politics and popular culture. One of the most striking such intersections occurred to me this summer as I sat down to read the twelfth and last volume of the wildly popular Left Behind series by evangelical preacher Tim LaHaye and novelist Jerry Jenkins...

The two narratives that I was reading here -- the Neocon's aggressive foreign policy, centered around the Middle East, and the Christian evangelical story of the immanent return of Christ in the Holy Land-- struck me as weirdly similar and disturbingly parallel. The former openly advocates a "New American Century" and a "benevolent hegemony" of the globe by U.S. power, inaugurated by the invasion of Iraq, while the latter predicts a New Millennium of divine rule ushered in by apocalyptic war, first in Babylon and then in Jerusalem.

I was tempted to dismiss the similarity as an amusing but insignificant coincidence. Yet the more I began to examine the Neocon's strategies and the ties between George W. Bush and the Christian Right, the less this link seemed to be either coincidental or unimportant. I am not, of course, suggesting that there is some kind of conspiratorial plot at work between Neocon strategists and evangelical writers like LaHaye, or that the two are somehow working secretly together behind the scenes. Rather, I am suggesting that there is a subtle but powerful "fit," or what sociologist Max Weber calls an "elective affinity," between the two that has helped them to reinforce one another in very effective ways. The otherwise vacuous figure of George W. Bush represents a crucial link or structural pivot between these two powerful factions, helping to tie them together: Bush presents the Neocons' radical foreign policy in a guise that is acceptable to his large base of support in the Christian Right, even as he reassures his Christian base that their moral agendas (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, faith-based initiatives, etc) will be given powerful political support. In Bush, America as the benevolent hegemon of the Neocons and the American-led "Tribulation Force" of LaHaye's wildly popular novels come together in a disturbing, yet surprisingly successful way.

In the last two decades, Tim LaHaye has emerged as not only the theological brains behind the best-selling Left Behind series, but also as one of the most influential figures in the American Christian Right. Indeed, when the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals decided to name the most influential evangelical leader of the past 25 years, they chose not Billy Graham, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, but Tim LaHaye, in large part because of his work in evangelical politics. Not only is LaHaye an influential preacher and interpreter of prophecy and revelation, he has also become a remarkably powerful force in domestic and now even international politics through the highly secretive Council for National Policy, founded in 1981. Called by some "the most powerful conservative group you've never heard of," the CNP includes among its members Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Jesse Helms, Tom DeLay, Oliver North, Christian Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdoony and, formerly, John Ashcroft (himself a Pentecostal Christian). Recent speakers at the Council's highly private meetings have included Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, and Timothy Goeglein, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. Although the group initially focused primarily on domestic agendas like abortion and homosexuality, LaHaye's Council has recently begun to turn to larger international issues such as U.S. policy in the Middle East and the state of Israel.

http://www.isebrand.com/article_america_left_behind.htm


Council for National Policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy

[Progo35]

Steven-

You really make me angry, sometimes. I NEVER SAID THAT THE WAR WAS GOING WONDERFULLY OR THAT WE WERE DOING THE LORD'S WORK THERE, AND IF YOU THINK THAT PRESENTING A DIFFFERENT PERSPECTIVE IS AN INSULT TO EVERYONE'S INTELLIGENCE, THAN I GUESS I SHOULD STOP THINKING FREELY RIGHT NOW.

[keltic63]

this thread has taken a ridiculous turn somewhere. I'm waiting for the childhood taunts of rubber and glue, or sticks and stones. Let's cool it down for a while.

[Jamie McDaniel]

It's good that we have people from both perspectives on the war around...

Before we consider reopening this thread, I want to make something clear. Soulforce is allied with the peace movement. In 2003, Soulforce posted an anti-war stance (www.soulforce.org/article/734).

In this staff member's opinion, a person who happens to be supportive of gay rights and supportive of America's occupation of Iraq is no friend of Soulforce. For a justice organization with Dr. King's image as part of our logo, the latter far outweighs the former.

We've had gay people tell us they would not donate to Soulforce due to our not remaining strictly a gay-rights organization (i.e. they were upset that we spoke out against the war). The loss of those donations was money well spent.

Our forums will not be used to undermine the anti-war movement. I encourage everyone angered by this thread to make a donation to Courage to Resist (www.couragetoresist.org).

[antonyh]

I read a challenging article by Chris Hedges that very much reminds me of what Soulforce is all about. It is also a good addition to what Kara wrote above about the price of being a peacemaker.


The refusal to pay my taxes if we go to war with Iran, and the portion of my taxes spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if we do not cut off funding for these two conflicts, is not a means. It is an end. I do not know if my refusal, and the refusal of others, will be effective in halting these wars. All I know is that it is worth doing. The alternative, a complacency bred from cynicism and despair, is worse. Refusing to actively resist injustice and flagrant violations of international law, refusing to attempt to turn back the tide of American tyranny, is surrender. It is the death of hope.

Acts of resistance are moral acts. They begin because people of conscience can no longer tolerate abuse and despotism. They are carried out not because they are effective but because they are right. Those who begin these acts are few in number and dismissed by the cynics who hide their fear behind their worldliness. Resistance is about affirming life in a world awash in death. It is the supreme act of faith, the highest form of spirituality. We remember and honor the names of those who, solitary when they began, defied their age. Henry David Thoreau. Jane Adams. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Mahatma Gandhi. Milovan Djilas. Andrei Sakharov. Martin Luther King. Václav Havel. Nelson Mandela. It is time to join them. They sacrificed their security and comfort, often spent time in jail and in some cases were killed. They understood that to live in the fullest sense of the word, to exist as free and independent human beings, meant to defy authority. When the dissident Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was taken from his cell in a Nazi prison to the gallows, his last words were ”this is for me the end, but also the beginning.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071210_why_we_resist/

[ladyinred]

I was thinking about the constitutional rights of our troops to resist what they consider an illegal war of aggression and why they are often punnished for disobeying what they feel are illegal orders, I think as a society we often expect others to make the sacrifices we would not want our family to have to make. Why should these troops be punnished for making a decision of conscience not to fight in a war they don't believe is warranted or legal? What about the accountability of those who lied and misled this nation ito war with Iraq, people like Dick Cheney for an instance? Who wanted this war no matter what intelligence indicated or tried to tell them? Who in truth needs to be justice for the cover-up and lies? Dick Cheney and those responsible or our troops?The CIA and the FBI don't have the power to declare war, so it seems that those at the top who did should be held accountable.

[ladyinred]

I was thinking about the constitutional rights of our troops to resist what they consider an illegal war of aggression and why they are often punnished for disobeying what they feel are illegal orders, I think as a society we often expect others to make the sacrifices we would not want our family to have to make. Why should these troops be punnished for making a decision of conscience not to fight in a war they don't believe is warranted or legal? What about the accountability of those who lied and misled this nation ito war with Iraq, people like Dick Cheney for an instance? Who wanted this war no matter what intelligence indicated? The CIA and FBI and other agencies don't have the power to declare war, so this goes straight up to the top, as to who should be held accountable. Based on this article:http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Book_Bush_told_aides_he_would_0906.html Many of the White House's most dramatic claims about the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction were repeatedly questioned by senior members of the U.S. intelligence community-but these dissents and views were suppressed or ignored by the White House. Admiral Thomas Wilson, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency until May 2002, is quoted in the book as casting doubt on virtually the entire White House case for an invasion of Iraq. "I didn't really think [Iraq] had a nuclear program," retired Admiral Wilson told the authors. "I didn't think [Saddam and Iraq] were an immediate threat on WMD."

The CIA missed an obvious clue that showed that the infamous Niger documents--the basis for Bush's false statement in a State of the Union speech--were crude forgeries. The clue was a bizarre companion document detailing a supposed global alliance of rogue nations (including Iraq and Iran)--a notion so unlikely that one State Department intelligence analyst immediately labeled it a hoax. The CIA also blew the call on these documents partly because an officer misplaced the papers.

U.S. intelligence officials suspected Iranian intelligence was trying to influence U.S. decision-making through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress-yet they felt they could do nothing about it because the INC had support within the White House and Pentagon.

Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle seriously doubted the case for war-and questioned the top-secret briefings they received directly from Cheney. One senior Republican, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, warned the President in a September 2002 meeting that Bush would be stuck in a "quagmire" if he invaded Iraq. But Armey and others were afraid for political reasons to challenge the White House on the prewar intelligence.

[ladyinred]

Here is an article by truthout published in 2005:excerpted
"While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq," reads the article, "a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war. These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses - including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network - have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East."

"They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views," continues the article, "and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary. 'Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,' said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews. No one who was interviewed disagreed. None of the dissenting officials, who work in a number of different agencies, would agree to speak publicly, out of fear of retribution. But many of them have long experience in the Middle East and South Asia, and all spoke in similar terms about their unease with the way US political leaders are dealing with Iraq." ****** This may be grounds for impeachment alone

Since the publication of that article, we have learned about the Project for the New American Century, about its powerful advocates in Washington - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bolton among them - and about their plans from 2000 that centered around an invasion and occupation of Iraq, based upon whatever pretext was available, to establish a permanent military presence in the Mideast and to gain ultimate control of petroleum management in the region.**** A basically "nice " way of saying we want control over Iraq's resources and will take it by force. Resources that don't belong to us but to the Iraqi people and the country. Reminds me of a biblical verse: "
Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, do not your heart on them." So we'll just go over there and take over the country and their resources for ourselves. That's pretty rotten on our part I would say. Now for the obvious question.. Do the Iraqi people stand to benefit from this war or all of this? It seems they are the biggest losers in this war and as it is, have already lost much. What other biblical laws did our Good Christian leaders break ,hmmm let's see, thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not cheat, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not bear false witness....can you all come up with others.....? Have we really honestly helped the Iraq people or liberated them from oppression or created more of it?

[ladyinred]

Why we fight:http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr090805.htm Antonyh I hope you read this. Anyone think that Ron Paul is a viable candidate? I think I might vote for him.(of course with more research, I'll have to find out more about the candidates)

[kara speltz]

I read a challenging article by Chris Hedges that very much reminds me of what Soulforce is all about. It is also a good addition to what Kara wrote above about the price of being a peacemaker.

Dear Anthony: Thanks for posting that piece by Chris Hedges. He is a good friend of Mel's and a big fan of Mel's last book, "Religion Gone Bad." I forwarded the quote on to Mel so he could see it. kara

[ladyinred]

Kara , being over in Iraq, what were your experiences with the Iraq people? We are told that Iran is the axis of evil for example, but did you know that when 9/11 happened that there were Iranian people who were holding candlelight vigils for those who had died and not celebrating their deaths? ( How come we never see this on American tv?)

Also Iran has tried to comunicate with the White house and they have refused. I was reading an article about this, but this is something that the Bush adminstration doesn't tell the American public. Also many in Iran want a democracy just not with American intervening ,that want to control their own internal state of affairs. We need to get a true picture of those we call "enemies" While not denying that there are terrorist who want nothing more than to see Americans dead, should we generalize and conclude all Moslems are fanatical?

I'd also like to add that there were those who had family members perish in 9/11 also wrote the President and Condolissa Rice begging our president not to go to war in Iraq, they didn't want families over there to be victimized like with what happened over here during 9/11. I saw the letters.

[antonyh]

Dear Anthony: Thanks for posting that piece by Chris Hedges. He is a good friend of Mel's and a big fan of Mel's last book, "Religion Gone Bad." I forwarded the quote on to Mel so he could see it. kara

I've been reading Chris Hedges book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and The War On America. He talks about Mel extensively in the book.

[kara speltz]

Kara , being over in Iraq, what were your experiences with the Iraq people? We are told that Iran is the axis of evil for example, but did you know that when 9/11 happened that there were Iranian people who were holding candlelight vigils for those who had died and not celebrating their deaths? ( How come we never see this on American tv?)

.

Dear Lady: The Iraqi people without exception welcomed us, where ever we went. We visited sites that had been bombed by the U.S. the previous day and there were hundreds of people mulling around and not a single Iraqi was anything but welcoming.

The most amazing thing was as we left Iraq on the first trip, one of our cars in the caravan had an accident not too far from the Jordianian border. The Iraqi people picked them up and took them to a clinic nearby. Their hospital had been destroyed by U.S. bombs, just days before. They treated our wounded and refused to take any money at all. This after ten years of having been under restrictions and unable to get any medicines.

It absolutely blew my mind. I remembered the atmosphere here right after 9/11 and anyone who looked like they might be arabic had to fear for their lives. When we returned, two years later, we visited a small town of some 50 families where almost 100 men had been taken into custody (between the ages of 14-80), most of whom were still being held and yet again their hospitality was unbelievable.

We learned so much from these people about hospitality. kara

[ladyinred]

We need to learn more about other cultures and other people, too often the media places negative stereotypes on people. And I think we too often feed into these prejudices.

[Jamie McDaniel]

The leadership of Soulforce doesn't want to hear anything that might justify the war in Iraq. You just want to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA, LA, LA, LA, I'M NOT LISTENING." So much for Soulforce being about tolerance and acceptance.

Though I feel bad about upsetting you (or anyone else of good will) I'm not sorry about my choice of words, Brian. Soulforce is a justice organization modeled after Dr. King, who spoke out sharply against the Vietnam war and condemned American militarism. Some gay groups think we are conservative, some church people think we are liberal. However, what Soulforce is not is merely another gay-rights group operating under the equation that Justice = LGBT equality. That's the main focus of our efforts, but Soulforce is about realizing that our inequality is a symptom of a much larger problem with America. If anything, we haven't done enough to protest the war in Iraq. Unlike Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Soulforce's speaking out against the unjust war of our day will probably not make but a footnote in the history books. If it angers some donors or not, LGBT people who support the occupation are seriously out of step with the spirit of Soulforce. Soulforce is strongly allied with the anti-war movement.

[antonyh]

Okay, I'm getting the message. The leadership of Soulforce doesn't want to hear anything that might justify the war in Iraq. You just want to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA, LA, LA, LA, I'M NOT LISTENING." So much for Soulforce being about tolerance and acceptance. The only people you want to accept are people that agree with you. Anyone else that speaks up with an unpopular view is shouted down. You say you don't want money from someone that supports the war? That's fine by me!:mad: If you want to ban me from the board that's fine too.

If you look at the Soulforce banner above you'll see Ghandi and King. Soulforce lives out the non-violence preached by these men. When Martin Luther King was rebuked for taking a position on the war against Vietnam and for not sticking to civil rights issues for African Americans, he offered the following explanation:


As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent...


Soulforce is not being intolerant, but simply being consistent with the core principles of non-violence.

[Jamie McDaniel]

After thinking about it a little more, I would really hope that this would not be a moment where we lose folks, but rather an opportunity to stir people's conscience so that they might move to the place where Soulforce is at.

Here is some interesting reading material concerning the hell that broke loose once Dr. King, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, decided to make his strong anti-war stance public.


New York Times editorial and letters to the editor (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/liberation_curriculum/pdfs/vietnameditorials.pdf) [pdf]

Letter to Dr. King returning SCLC donor card (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/liberation_curriculum/pdfs/vietnamdoc3.pdf) [pdf]
Dr. King's letter to SCLC supporters who had withdrawn their support (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/liberation_curriculum/pdfs/letterfromking_sclc.pdf) [pdf]

[Daniel]

I was talking with my Dad a few days ago. The conversation began when he asked me what New Yorker's thought of Guiliani (that's another thread! :D), and then the conversation progressed to the War in Iraq and the 'supposed'- I saw supposed because I have a real problem with the way the media has labeled the- "War On Terror'.

When I mentioned to my Dad that I believed that peace could not be obtained at the end of a gun, you would have thought I had just spit in his face. Things got heated real fast- on his part at least. You'd have thought I had just called into question everything he 'stood for'.

My Dad- a veteran of Korea. An MP.

He told me the story of being on a train in San Fransisco on the way back and then President's Truman's train went by. Truman was standing on the back of the train- and guess what? All the troops that he passed booed and jeered him. Of course, my father, who was brought up to think that one should respect authority no matter what, was mortified.

Then he pointed out to me that Pakistan was going crazy and that terrorists were going to get the bomb and blow up NYC (where I live) which kinda stopped the conversation as far as I was concerned.

The issue here, as I see it, is that peace and nonviolence is too often thought of as some namby-pamby matter. REAL men carry guns and know how to use them. Real men follow orders, shoot first, and then ask questions later.

What I wanted to ask my dad (and didn't- not thinking as fast in the moment as I would have liked) "So.....why haven't you encouraged your age ready grandson to sign up for the 'War on Terror"?


:smashy:


And you know why? Because everyone and their dog knows on some level that concepts like 'Preemption" are a crock of shit. You don't hear that phrase being bandied about much lately, do you?

"I think you might hurt me so I'm gonna blow your face off!" Is what it amounts to.

It's all about fear mongering.

Gandhi and King? They taught and embodied something else entirely. I want what they had.

Hey. I love my Dad. Called him today and we're still talking. Maybe that's the point.

[ladyinred]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122807J.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122607J.shtml

[antonyh]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122807J.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122607J.shtml

Interesting link...shocking idea. Naomi Klein created a short film about the Shock Doctrine.

kieyjfZDUIc

Here is her Website:

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

I think I will put this book on my reading list for '08.

[ladyinred]

There were experiments that were done on unwitting mental patients to do just that to "wipe the slate clean(LSD overdoses, sleep deprivation, bombarding with subliminal messages)it's not something of fiction,I'll try to find the links for you.These were not done with the patients knowledge by the way. Here is the link http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/lsd09a.htm these experiments seem to correspond with the programs of CIA.Patients were not being treated for their own benefit but were used as guinea pigs, without their knowledge or consent.I'd read about these experiments several months ago.

[ladyinred]

After seeing that video you posted , I admit that stuff is scary.But after watching the above videos I posted, it doesn't seem that this war in Iraq had anything to do with the liberation of the Iraq people, but rather more oppression and the pillaging and robbing of them of their resources for personal gain and profit in other words ,GREED and war profiteering ,this is hardly a moral basis for going to war Now that may offend some people here that may support the war(Not that that is my goal to offend people but perhaps we need to look at things again), but ask yourselves does this justify immoral actions against the country and it's citizens, has this helped liberate them?Are we as a society so ill informed and blind to this that we would be complicit and approve of this?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_profiteering
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030512/editors
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/57/72/

[ladyinred]

I'd also like to add that Jamie is not responsible for other people's feelings of upset.We all need to own our own feelings.I personally after reading about the war in Vietnam thought it was wrong, don't people in their own country have the right to determine their own destiny,(Foreign occupations are not popular in other countries as it would not be for our own , would we want China to occupy our country for example?Just because they had the military might to do so? We'd be screaming bloody murder) We wanted our independence from Great Britain and did not want the monarchy to dictate to us our affairs , were we wrong then? If we truly wanted a democratic Vietnam why did we support the South's unpopular leader?

Why do we continue to support and prop up dictators like Saddam Hussein(He was our ally in the past), like we did in the past knowing their record of violations against their own people... because we think it supports democracy or our own strategic interests? Do we think the people of Iraq are supposed to be beholden to us and thankful by the way? Why didn't we take a stand against Saddam Hussein for what he was doing to his own people back then?Again because it didn't serve our interests to do so.Why do we think then that we tend to alienate and offend other countries when we do this? Was Ghandi wrong for standing up to the british occupation of his country? The "wisdom of man" is not necessarily the wisdom of God. People the world over seemed to be engrossed in more death and conflict rather than spiritual pursuits that affirm humanity and human rights.Is the United States somehow the only culprit ,no this is a problem that afflicts humanity worldwide. Other countries can't be said to be the champions of human rights either, they aren't necessarily contributing to peaceful resolutions either. Violence in some form is all too common in many societies if not most.What do we need to learn from this? Humanity needs to change before we can see constructive changes in the world.

[Steven E. Webster]

Though I feel bad about upsetting you (or anyone else of good will) I'm not sorry about my choice of words, Brian. Soulforce is a justice organization modeled after Dr. King, who spoke out sharply against the Vietnam war and condemned American militarism. Some gay groups think we are conservative, some church people think we are liberal. However, what Soulforce is not is merely another gay-rights group operating under the equation that Justice = LGBT equality. That's the main focus of our efforts, but Soulforce is about realizing that our inequality is a symptom of a much larger problem with America. If anything, we haven't done enough to protest the war in Iraq. Unlike Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Soulforce's speaking out against the unjust war of our day will probably not make but a footnote in the history books. If it angers some donors or not, LGBT people who support the occupation are seriously out of step with the spirit of Soulforce. Soulforce is strongly allied with the anti-war movement.

Jamie,
Tough words! I had the pleasure several years ago (before the Iraq War was fully revealed to be the disaster that it has become) to have dinner with Mel and several Soulforce supporters in Madison, Wisconsin. We had a PFLAG parent at the table who was very much pro-War and pro-GOP. We all (including Mel) kind of bit our tongues in that context. (Why ruin a good meal with an argument?)

I agree with making the connections between LGBT oppression and the "bigger issues." When we come face to face with organizations like the neoconservative/theoconservative Washington, D.C. think-tank, the Institute for Religion and Democracy, (a real force among our adversaries in the United Methodist Church, the Anglican Communion and the Presbyterian Church), we simply cannot avoid those connections. IRD uses the LGBT issue to keep those churches divided and their voices silenced on the issue of the war (and other progressive political issues).

Here's a link to a "news piece" by the IRD:
http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=391221&ct=4813725

Notice how both the War in Iraq and the LGBT issue meet up in this neoconservative/theoconservative piece of propaganda.

By the way, as a United Methodist, I'm proud of this recent statement against the war by the United Methodist Bishops.

Notice how IRD uses an African Bishop to put forward an anti-withdrawal argument. The IRD is working closely with both Anglican and Methodist African Bishops these days. We're likely to see this at work at the United Methodist General Conference in Fort Worth in late April. Here's a link: http://www.soulforce.org/article/1314

Steven Webster

[ladyinred]

The bishops voted to replace the call to “support the troops” with one to “care for all impacted by the war.” Dissenting votes on this amendment were cast by Bishops Sally Dyck (Minnesota) and Davis. I can live with this statement, because I don't think it excludes our troops who are also wounded or traumatized,this is not statement of exclusion or divisiveness to me, but considers all concerned including the people of Iraq who are impacted. I hope that makes sense. I have to say that Soulforce has to stand by it's convictions ,people have the right to disagree if they want, but I don't think it is right to expect them to change their core values or convictions,to go along just to get along.I support Soulforce and it's convictions to bring about a more just world.

[ladyinred]

Antonyh If what Naomi Klein claimed about the invasion of Iraq is true, we deliberately bomb civilians to scare the heck out of them or to intimidate the civilian population, and then decided we were going to take over their resources. They said nothing about going after weapons of mass destruction or targeting military weapons as such.Sounds something similar to what Hitler would do and the holocaust.
Ok now it appears that this was part of Germany's strategies against other nations;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Civilian_casualties_and_destruction_ of_infrastructure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg (We adopt German World war 2 strategies?)

[marutidas]

I know I am late to this party,
but here is my two cents anyway.

I have read many of your post. This is waht I have to say.
I agree this war was 1st of all pointless, connect 9/11 to Sadam, who did not have any connection to Al-qeda, to destablize an entire country on the basis of lies and propaganda and KILLING thousands of innocents in the name of "freedom".

And yes our media has been bullied to show only what our government wants us to know. Only show the small stable area known as the green zone. Not reporting the full extent of damage that U.S. involved or insergent attacks have inflicted.

Not showing that the people who live outside this zone, do not have reliable utilies, and that their power is shut off at night. Who live in canstant fear of an attack.

There will be no happy ending. There is no stradegy to get America out the region, and when we do leave, it will not be clean, easy or quick.

If we continue to persue a military end to this war, it will only lead to more violence and more blood.

[matthewspeed]

Jamie,
I can't believe you said what you said!! If someone has an opinion that the war in Iraq was necessary, you consider that person NOT a friend of Soulforce? That is so wrong. All opinions are to be respected on this forum. I am not a fan of the war, but I have not come to the conclusion that it was entirely wrong. I have not made that decision yet. What if it WERE necessary? Are you saying that Soulforce is against ANY type of war? What about World War II? Should we have stood by and let evil prevail? I am for peace. I HATE war, but sometimes, unfortunately, war is necessary to protect the freedoms we hold so dearly! If Hitler were alive today, murdering millions of jews in deathcamps, I would stand behind our government if we chose to send our troups to end his evil reign.

If I will be "excommunicated" for embracing the war in Iraq, then do so. We are to be tolerant and accepting of others viewpoints on this forum. Isn't that what we are fighting for as GLBT people? In order to get acceptance and respect, we have to give it out to all whether other believe as we do or not!

[Unmasked]

The invasion of Iraq was illegal. Military action in another country is only legal in two cases. 1) If we have been attacked and there is a declaration of war. 2) If the UN Security Council agrees that there is a threat to global security.

Neither condition was met. True, he was an evil dictator, but he was once our boy. I personally feel that the Nation of Israel is a greater evil than Sadaam ever was. We need to stop giving aid to Israel, and rethink our choice of allies. They have robbed Palestine and dehumanized her people. But again, as long as these "End Times" nuts are running things they will always support the spilling of blood and oppression of innocents.

[matthewspeed]

Unmasked,
I respect your opinion, however, as a christian, I can never see Isreal as our enemy. The bible states that anyone who protects Isreal is blessed. I believe that Jews were Gods first chosen people. Do I think that the nation of Isreal is perfect? No. But I feel that the land Isreal is Holy and to turn on them would be disasterous. Are some Isrealites prejudice against the Palestines? Yes, and I think that is definitely wrong.

Now, other christians may disagree with me, but my concious is clear on this.

Also,I don't understand how anyone can say that Isreal is a greater evil than Saddam ever was. Do you hear of beheading in Isreal? Do you hear of Isreal killing their citizens for no reason? Do you hear of mass murdering in Isreal? Lets call evil for what is is. Saddam was an evil dictator. If anyone of us were citizens of Iraq and had family members murdered, I think we would be outraged and would rejoice in Saddams death. Homosexuals were also killed just for the fact that they were homosexual.

[Pablo Rafael]

I think it is easy to classify things into two camps, right/wrong, good/bad. The Israel/Palestinian conflict is one that I have a problem trying to decide who is good and who is bad. I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians; they are a desperate people who are living in desperate poverty. I also sympathize with Israel; it is a nation that is constantly under attack from groups like Hamas (sp?) that operate inside Palestinian territories. Unfortunately the common people who want only to live their lives in peace, prosperity and security have to sufffer from the actions of those who are in places of influence.

On the wider question about the invasion of Iraq. I was opposed to the war from the start. I thought that getting rid of Sadaam Hussein was a good idea. The man had no concern for anyone but himself, a terrible quality in a leader. However, sometimes it is not possible to solve a problem. I was concerned initially that we would stir up a hornet's nest by going into Iraq. The resulting conflict would be out of our control. My fears seem to have been realized.

I feel that it is important to respect the people who have opposing opinions. To say there is a right/wrong divide that is obvious and objective is counterproductive to working together. Very few things are clear cut. We are always working in a world of contradictions and uncertainties.

Now if everyone would just agree with me, life would be a utopia for us all. :D

[matthewspeed]

Pablo,
You make great points. I just want to say, that after all of the facts presented, it does seem that going into Iraq may not have been the right thing to do, however, I am not convinced that Bush lied from the beginning. I really feel that all parties involved truely believed that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. I am one that believes that when the truth finally was revealed, there was no admisssion to the facts after the fact. Then the war became unecessary. That is where I am currently on the subjet.

[Steven E. Webster]

Unmasked,
I respect your opinion, however, as a christian, I can never see Isreal as our enemy. The bible states that anyone who protects Isreal is blessed. I believe that Jews were Gods first chosen people. Do I think that the nation of Isreal is perfect? No. But I feel that the land Isreal is Holy and to turn on them would be disasterous. Are some Isrealites prejudice against the Palestines? Yes, and I think that is definitely wrong.

Now, other christians may disagree with me, but my concious is clear on this.

Also,I don't understand how anyone can say that Isreal is a greater evil than Saddam ever was. Do you hear of beheading in Isreal? Do you hear of Isreal killing their citizens for no reason? Do you hear of mass murdering in Isreal? Lets call evil for what is is. Saddam was an evil dictator. If anyone of us were citizens of Iraq and had family members murdered, I think we would be outraged and would rejoice in Saddams death. Homosexuals were also killed just for the fact that they were homosexual.

Here's where I think there may be a big divide between Progressive Christians and Fundamentalist Christians. A Christian can believe that Jews are God's Chosen people without believing that it is just for the modern state of Israel to oppress the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine (some of whom were and are Christian, by-the-way).

And about this "God's Chosen People" business---just what does it mean? As I read my Bible, being God's Chosen People had something to do with bringing a blessing to all earth's peoples, not dominating and oppressing others.

You know, we Euro-American Christians misused this "God's Chosen People" business to justify the extermination of Native Americans and the expropriation of their lands. It seems to me like this is the same way some folks look at Israel and the Palestinians---like God wants Israel to expel or exterminate Palestinian Christians and Muslims. Is this "God's Chosen People" business about racism, or is it about working with God to establish the "peaceable kingdom" envisioned by Isaiah and the other prophets where "the lion lies down with the lamb and there is no killing"?

There seems to be some consensus around building a just "two-state" solution that would allow Jews, Christians and Muslims to occupy Palestine in peace. I see Fundamentalist Christians and some (certainly not all) Jews as not supporting a just resolution to the conflict. I'm equally offended by radical anti-Jewish rhetoric coming from some Muslims (and Christians). Let's not forget that the ultimate fate of Jews in the Fundamentalist Christian worldview (despite their current support of Israel) is to convert to Christianity or be violently destroyed.

There are Progressive Christians and Jews who support a just, "two-state" solution. The inability of the U.S. to convince our allies in Israel to achieve a just peace seems to be a big part of our conflict with the Muslim world.

I don't believe that it is the teaching of Jesus Christ that we can achieve peace through war.

I find it strange that Barak Obama gets attacked for having Jerimiah Wright for a Pastor, when there is comparatively little objection to McCain's embrace of Pastor Hagee who is preaching war and Armageddon in the Middle East.

Steven Webster

[matthewspeed]

Whether we want to admit it or not, the Jewish nation was Gods first elect. Period! You don't have to be a literalist to see that in the scriptures. Can a Jewish person act in a way that is not pleasing to God? Yes. Can a Jew oppress others? Yes. Christians do it all the time. Muslims do it as well. Just becuase Jews are Gods chosen, that does not absolve them from their anti-Palestine ways. But I feel you cant' go around the issue of Isreal being a Holy land for Jews and Christians. Why do you think so much unrest lies in that land? It is not just political, but a spiritual battle most importantly. Since Genesis, this battle has been raging. In the end, God will have justice. Justice will prevail for the Jews as well as the Palestines.

I will agree with you that Christians over the centuries have killed in the name of God. That is horrible. I agree. But that does not change the fact that Christianity is good. Just because Jews have shown no mercy to the Palestines does not make Jews or the nation of Isreal an evil place. God still sees His own as His own.

I'm sorry, but I am in the belief that we must remain Isreal's ally (spelling?) I guess I am passionat about this. But please understand, I do see your point. I am not a fan of war. I want peace. But sometimes War is inevitable. Wars were justified by God in the old testamant. There is no getting around that. God is a loving God, but He is a just God as well.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Jamie,
I can't believe you said what you said!! If someone has an opinion that the war in Iraq was necessary, you consider that person NOT a friend of Soulforce? That is so wrong. All opinions are to be respected on this forum.

I've deeply regretted things I have said in the past, even when no one was upset by them. This is not one of those times, however.

First, the idea that all positions are "opinions" is actually a clever tactic of the right to allow injustice to continue while framing the struggle for justice as a debate. After all, everyone has a right to their opinion, right?

In the 1950's it was just the white citizens council's "opinion" that segregation was a good policy for America's cities.

Women do not need a vote when the man of the house can represent the household's voice -- is this just an "opinion" from 1915?

Anti-gay groups argue that it is their "opinion" that marriage should be one man and one woman, and thus deny LGBT Americans equality.

Matthew, I know you would not grant any of these the status of "opinions" because those positions are one group doing an injustice to another group. And oppression is never just another opinion.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a terrible injustice and abuse of America's military power. Support the war in Iraq and be in step with Soulforce? Rubbish.

[antonyh]

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a terrible injustice and abuse of America's military power. Support the war in Iraq and be in step with Soulforce? Rubbish.

Thank you for standing by your statements. I hope Matthew takes some time to read Gandhi and King so that he understands the non-violence at the heart of Soulforce.

[tdogg]

Whether we want to admit it or not, the Jewish nation was Gods first elect. Period! You don't have to be a literalist to see that in the scriptures.

Matthew,

Just wondering...Do you find it interesting, and possibly self-serving, that the scriptures which you feel confirm that the Jewish (Hebrew) nation is God's first elect, chosen people were written by those same people?

[Steven E. Webster]

But I feel you cant' go around the issue of Isreal being a Holy land for Jews and Christians.

And Israel is a Holy Land for the Muslims as well. I'm looking forward to the day when we look beyond "Judeo-Christian" and realize that Islam is an Abrahamic religion together with Judaism and Christianity. As children of Abraham, Muslims are as "chosen" as are Christians and Jews. It is possible for Christians, Jews and Muslims to live together in peace. We have much to learn from one another.

That goes also for the many other spiritual traditions of humankind. Let us not forget that Soulforce is and Interfaith group embracing people of many spiritualities. This the tradition of Gandhi and King.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Thank you for standing by your statements. I hope Matthew takes some time to read Gandhi and King so that he understands the non-violence at the heart of Soulforce.

"The ultimate weakness of [using violence to stop] violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder the hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.....Returning violence for violence mutiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that."

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.




In light of this statement, how are we to consider the Wars in Iraq and Afganistan? How are we to consider War? We murdered Saddam. How are we to consider that?

These are real things, not abstractions. If we take King and Gandhi seriously- and I hope we do- we have to wrap our brains around doing things differently. In fact, we are going to have to be different.

And isn't that what being the change we seek is all about?

Killing people never brings peace. And I defy anyone to give me an example where it has.

[Emproph]

CNN Newsroom (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/23/cnr.02.html)
Aired March 23, 2008 - 22:00 ET
(Update: official transcript at link above, and commentary below modified to reflect this)
~~~
I caught the tail end of this replay at about 1:55 AM. The headline at the bottom of the screen was: "Breaking News, 4,000 U.S. Dead In Iraq."

As usual, whenever there is mention of American deaths in Iraq, I always stop to listen for mention of the Iraqi death toll, which I rarely hear of. This time however, it was mentioned. And fortunately, and as usual, Michael Ware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ware) came through to give us earfuls more about the situation.

Panelist Martha Zoller (http://www.marthazoller.com/main.asp) thought that we should be talking about something other than our responsibility for the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi's (as well as our own), a typical conservative response. Most enjoyably however, Ware, who is based in Baghdad, eviscerates the notion with damning insight.
~~~
This is my transcript from before the official version was posted on CNN. The nuances included here may be a bit more irritating to read through, but I find that overall it makes the read a bit more juicy.
MICHAEL WARE: …and to now have, the 4,000 American dead, really is, a chilling moment. [RICK SANCHEZ: Let me ask you Michael] One wonders…

RICK SANCHEZ: Michael I just want to interrupt you for a moment, because it--since-since we’re talking of numbers, I want to ask you about something that, rarely is, talked about on network television, in the United States, and that is, the 4,000 American’s is serious enough, but is it your understanding that the number of dead Iraqi’s, would what---double, triple, or what would it do, what is [MICHAEL WARE: Ugh!] that number, [MICHAEL WARE: Ugh.] do you know it?

MICHAEL WARE: [sighs] Well Rick, no one can give you a figure, of the number of Iraqi souls, that have been lost in the five years so far of this, conflict, but, it’s exponentially greater than two, or three, or even ten times, this terrible number of American [RICK SANCHEZ: Hm] casualties. We’re talking, we’re talking about, on conservative estimates, between 80,000 to 100,000 Iraqi’s, have lost their lives, and that’s not to mention---more than 4 million Iraqi’s, are displaced from their homes. 2 million are lost, here in Iraq, wanting to return home. 2 million more-plus, are beyond this country’s border, and there seems little hope that any of them to return. And the entire social fabric, of this country, has been torn asunder, with a gru--a legacy of this war, that is now divided along sectarian lines, Sunni vs. Shia, when it never was before---not even under Saddam. So the impact, and the toll, that this conflict has taken on this country, is almost immeasurable, Rick.

RICK SANCHEZ: Michael, if you’ll allow us for a minute, I want to bring Martha in. Martha, you’re shaking your head while you’re listening to Michael’s report. Is it because of a disagreement?

MARTHA ZOLLER: It’s--I really do disagree on--on some of the issues. And I’ve been, not as long as Michael has been in Iraq [RICK SANCHEZ: Right.], but I’ve been there twice. I have been in--seen provincial areas, and in many of the provincial governments, the--they are functioning. Baghdad has continued to be a problem, but better. And I just think that’s the story that’s not being reported…

RICK SANCHEZ: …That it really is a success, is that you’re saying?

MARTHA ZOLLER: That the provincial governments are functioning the way they should, in most cases.

RICK SANCHEZ: Michael, how about that---that the provincial governments are now, functioning much better, and in many ways, the way they should be functioning?

MICHAEL WARE: Well there’s a number of things we can say about that. Certainly, on paper, there is a thin, veneer, of success, in the fact that the provincial governments, or some of them, are operating in the way they are. But let’s look at it this way, most of those provincial governments are operating in that way, because they’re so heavily supported by Iran. We’re talking about provincial governments, in the south, where there’s very little Sunni / Shia divide at all, because it’s a largely, exclusively, Shia population. Where, they’re ruled, by political parties and paramilitary factions, either, created in Iran during exile from Saddam, or which have been created after this conflict began, by Iran’s Quds force, or other political organizations, within Iran.

The other provinces that are functioning so well, here in Iraq, are the Kurdish regions to the north, where they essentially have a parallel government, to the central government in Iraq. They have their own territory, their own parliament, their own representatives, for defense, and foreign affairs. So there’s a duplication here. They’ve only recently been able to grit their teeth in the Kurdish north, and fly the, Iraqi national flag, rather than a Kurdish flag. So yes, in one, very limited sense, they are operating, but, come on, let’s look at the realities, they’re consolidating their power [MARTHA ZOLLER: And what about Anbar though?], weakening the central government, and…

Anbar province--Anbar province is in the control now, of the former Sunni insurgency, with whom, they’ve cut a deal with the Americans. They are functioning, but it’s run by the Iraqi Islamic Party, which has ties to Al-Qaeda, and which can barely deliver any kind of services, or distribute the budget that it has. So there is progress, but let’s look at it, in the big picture, in it’s true context.

RICK SANCHEZ: Michael, we are out of time, thanks so much for hustling to the camera and bringing us this live report.
~~~
Re provincial governments:
MARTHA ZOLLER: And I just think that’s the story that’s not being reported…
Touche' Martha. And to take it a step further---above and beyond even Iraq---clearly the real story here must be with all the unjust wars that aren't even being waged.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/rollEyes.gif

[Pablo Rafael]

Whether we want to admit it or not, the Jewish nation was Gods first elect. Can a Jewish person act in a way that is not pleasing to God? Yes. Can a Jew oppress others? Yes. Christians do it all the time.


I must admit the the nation of Israel has a special place in my heart. It is the same reason that my grandmother has a place in my heart. It is not that she is greater than any other grandmother, but that she is MY grandmother. God chose her and me to have a special connection. As a Christian, I see Israel as my spiritual grandmother. It was through this people that God spoke His message.

Israel was the people chosen by God to be the nation through which the Savior would come into the world. In the Bible we read repeatedly that it was not because Israelites were better or stronger that they were chosen, but they were chosen by God because of God's power and righteousness.

I'm not sure that the modern nation of Israel and the Biblical nation of Israel are the same. But seeing things from an American viewpoint, Israel is quite important. We really need strong allies in this area of the world. There is hardly any nation that is a stronger ally of the US than is Israel. Despite the failings of the modern nation of Israel, it is a democratic, stable nation. It is a country surrounded by nations that have wanted to wipe it out since the 1940's. It is a nation with tough, harsh policies, but if I were surrounded by enemies who wanted me wipe out, I would probably be tough and harsh too.

I am not a fan of war. I want peace. But sometimes War is inevitable.

Sadly I also feel that war is sometimes inevitable. On the playground there is a "no fighting" rule. That rule works 99.9% of the time. But occasionally clobbering someone is the only option that makes sense. Violence is never a good option, but sometimes it is the only workable option. (But I don't think the current war is one of those circumstances.)

[matthewspeed]

Shame on you Jamie.

I am proud to be on Soulforce. I desire peace. Soulforce is for peaceful solutions to fight discrimination. I hate war. I hate discrimination. I hate hate! But just because I may see the War in Iraq as a necessity does not make my opinion less valid. It does not place me in the same categories as you have stated. And for that matter, if you read my threads, you will see that I have not come to the conclusion that I stand for the Iraq war. I am still weighing out all the issues. Can I do that? Am I allowed to contemplate? Am I allowed to continue with my own research? I thought this forum was a place to share our views and to dialoge. Obviously, you are no different than the Religious right. You won't even allow me to share my convictions and my thoughts. You would rather set the rules on what people should believe and how they should conduct their lives.


You are narrow minded and extremely arrogant. In my circles at work and in my personal life, I have many friends and aquaintences that have opposing views that vary immensely. My God tells me to allow all to share their heart as long as they have respect for others and do not promote hate. Have I respected others on this forum? Most definitely. Have I promoted hate? OF COURSE NOT.

I was afraid I was being too dogmatic in my opinions. I have prayed about it and asked God If I am being unreasonable in my words and opinions. After this contemplation, I don't think I have been. I can sleep at night, knowing that I have been honest with my feelings and have allowed others to do the same. YOU, on the otherhand would throw me aside just because I "might" support the war. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Maybe Soulforce is not for you. Maybe you should have a forum of your own on lifes perspectives "According to Jamie." All other view points would be invalid if they are not the same as yours.

[matthewspeed]

Antonyh,

Please understand that I am for peace. I will say it again. I hate war. And I will say it again. I am not saying that I am for the Iraq War. I am weighing all the facts.

But one thing we must all remember. There have been times in history when War was a necessity. You and I have our freedom due to the American soldiers who fought in WWII. That war was inevitable. Is this current war justified? Most likley not! I am seeing the injustices of this war. But I have seen some good. But in saying that, we can't have this "Polyanna" attititude that wars should never be fought. Unfortunately, our freedoms, sometimes, depend on war. Ironic as it sounds, many times, peace is a result of war.

I will say one thing. I am over joyed that Sudaam is dead. It has been said on this forum that we are "guilty" of murdering Saadam. If we are guilty of that, I have no remorse. We must rid evil for the sake of protecting innocent lives! Look at what Hitler did. Should we have stayed out of Germany and allowed the innocent victims of the Holocaust to go on being slaughtered? I am sure that if anyone of us had a family or friends slaughtered for no reason by an evil dictator, we would feel much different about the so called "murder" of Saadam. He was justifiably killed.

Ghandi was a remarkable man, I agree. I respect him 100%. A wise man he was. But as you recommend me to read his writings, please get a hold of writings from past WWII soldiers experiences in liberating the Jews. Read how charred remains of bodies, especially childrens bodies, were found by the U.S. soldiers. Pregnant women were tortured during live experimentation. Many Jews were burned alive in the ovens. Is this worth fighting a war over? Most definitely! Justice must prevail.

If someone was to enter my home threatening to kill my family/friends, would I kill or "murder" the unwelcome invader before he/she were to kill my family/friends? You bet I would. A peaceful dialogue would not work in that situation. I am sure you would agree. Lets be totally realistic.

[Emproph]

But just because I may see the War in Iraq as a necessity does not make my opinion less valid.

Sure it does.

First, the idea that all positions are "opinions" is actually a clever tactic of the right to allow injustice to continue while framing the struggle for justice as a debate. After all, everyone has a right to their opinion, right?

oppression is never just another opinion.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a terrible injustice and abuse of America's military power.

Point is, how can you have a working opinion, without demonstrating what it's based on? And at that point, how is it then truly possible to condemn, or oppress your opinion, as you suggest has happened?

No one is stopping you from justifying the war as you see fit. Show us why it was necessary in a way that we currently do not understand. I think I can speak for most people here when I say that we’re willing to listen.

But if you’re going to make the case for the death and displacement of tens of thousands of people like you and I, then it better be to offset an even greater horror.

The Bush Administration’s attempt to argue that very point failed historically miserably.

The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, our Mid East 'ally.' North Korea and Iran were both known-to-have-had bigger designs on WMD’s than was even argued for the case against Iraq. Virtually every member of our military is now on their way to Iraq, just having come home from Iraq, or in Iraq. Our country is currently without a working militia -- to the tune of a trillion dollars. Money being very well spent to harm innocent people in Iraq. People who will no doubt remember, and tell all their friends, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON THEY EVER COME IN CONTACT WITH FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, about what horrible, ruthless, barbaric people the Americans are.

So Matthew, If there is something about all that, that I am not seeing as necessary (or even having been COMPLETELY foreseeable by the Bush Administration) that you are seeing as necessary, then by all means, please enlighten us.

[matthewspeed]

I feel as though I am being attacked on this forum for just giving my opinion. I want to thank some of you for that. Thank you for making me feel apart of this "so called" family. It feels like being in the fundamentalist church I was in a few years back when I was being questioned for being gay!!

For one thing, I have said it again and again. I have NOT made up my mind as of yet on this whole Irag war subject. Did you read that??? I have not said I have come to a final conclusion. I am researching this. I'm giving my thoughts on this issue. Did you read that in my threads before you attack me on my opinions??

I did explain the fact that Sadaam being found and justifiably killed was a good thing to come out of the war. I also mentioned previously that women being able to have freedom to vote, closer to being counted as first class citizens, was a good outcome. I have heard and read various comments of U.S. soldiers. They have explained the good that has come out of this. Citizens of Iraq have thanked them for what they have done. They (the Iraqis') have felt a sense of a more free country, even though much more needs to be done in that sad country. Some of the citizens of Iraq have explained that they now have more hope- hope that they did not have before. Many U.S. Soldiers have been thanked by the Iraqi people. Also, we have been able to stop further terrorists from continued bombings in this country. But I do ask the question. Is it due to the war, or our intelligence right here in America? These are some of the things I am seeking answers to.

On the other side, yes, I see the bloodshed of innocent people. I see that after no weapons of mass destruction were found, we remained there after that. I see how Bush has possibly entered this war on his own terms as revenge - to finish what his father did not finish during Bush Sr's administration.

I see all sides of this. I want to say one thing. I believe,we can't be against a particular war just due to the bloodshed. In any war, there will be casualties, whether it be the soldiers or innocent citizens. That is horrible. I do not joy in that at all!! But if a war IS necessary, unfortunately, that type of situation can not be avoided. But if the war was done illegally, and without just cause, it is absurd and evil! I am in agreement with that. I believe that war should be a LAST RESORT. And it looks like this war was not a last resort. It looks as if we went into this when another option could have been used. On the other hand, it seemed necessary to go into war at the time.

Did Bush know about the fact that no weapons existed in Irag? Or was he incorrectly informed and then he continued with the war in spite of this received knowlege. I do not like Bush and would not vote for him again, if he could run, belive me!! But I am not convinced whether he lied or if he was just given the wrong information. But I do believe that it is time to set a time table to get out of there. Enough is enough. It is becoming another Vietnam war.

Now, I could have explained all of this earlier, but just the mention of my dilemma of unsurity of the war, caused Jamie to come out of the wood work and spew his unwelcome words to me. My point, then, became not about the war, it was about expressing my views. I felt I was being shunned before I could even further explain.

I have enjoyed this forum until now. There is no need to respond to this message. I am sure some of you have your thoughts and will continue to express them concerning my statements. That is good. Continue on. But now I know that any further opinions I may have concerning other topics may experience the same results. I choose not to fight a loosing battle. It is good to choose ones battles. Not all battles are worth fighting for. I will miss some of the soulforce members. One in particular has my email address, and I look forward to continue our conversations. You know who you are. :)

For the most part, this is an awsome format for the GLBT community. I've enjoyed it here, really I have. Those of you that are tolerable and have a heart to listen to all valid points on any given issue, carry on! God bless you all.

[paul]

Point is, how can you have a working opinion, without demonstrating what it's based on? And at that point, how is it then truly possible to condemn, or oppress your opinion, as you suggest has happened?

No one is stopping you from justifying the war as you see fit. Show us why it was necessary in a way that we currently do not understand. I think I can speak for most people here when I say that we’re willing to listen.

Nicely put Emproph.

Matthew,

Please re-read what you have written and what Jamie has written. Jamie is challenging a position, you are attacking Jamie, the person. You are taking what Jamie is saying personally even though Jamie didn't attack you personally. You've repeatedly pointed out that you do not support the war in Iraq and that you are undecided.

Jamie believes that "The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a terrible injustice and abuse of America's military power." Since he believes the invasion to be a "terrible injustice," and the mission of SoulForce is to fight "injustice," Jamie is being logical when he says one cannot support that war and be in line with SoulForce.

Instead of attacking Jamie, tell us why you believe he is wrong that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a terrible injustice.

You are narrow minded and extremely arrogant

Matthew, this is offensive (literally).

[matthewspeed]

No need for me to make a response, as you can see from my last message, I am leaving Soulforce.

But I will say one thing. Yes, Jamie did attack me personally whether you say he did or not. He said that if I did support the war, then I am no friend of Soulforce. Many of you are missing the whole point.

The injustice of the war is still an opinion due to the fact that many facts remain on both sides. Both sides should be open for discussion. Period.

No more responding. I'm out of hear guys/gals. Blessings

-Matthew

[keltic63]

No need for me to make a response, as you can see from my last message, I am leaving Soulforce.

But I will say one thing. Yes, Jamie did attack me personally whether you say he did or not. He said that if I did support the war, then I am no friend of Soulforce. Many of you are missing the whole point.

The injustice of the war is still an opinion due to the fact that many facts remain on both sides. Both sides should be open for discussion. Period.

No more responding. I'm out of hear guys/gals. Blessings

-Matthew


Oh! the drama!

You dig up an old thread, start an argument, insult people, then leave.

You've been given several opportunities to present these "facts" yet, you haven't. Instead, you offer more ranting, and justification of your opinion. YOU were not personally attacked. You did indeed attack the person and character of Jamie. An organization whose mission is to fight injustice in the tradition of Gandhi and MLKjr can not possibly support war. Is that so hard to understand?

[Emproph]

I feel as though I am being attacked on this forum for just giving my opinion. I want to thank some of you for that. Thank you for making me feel apart of this "so called" family. It feels like being in the fundamentalist church I was in a few years back when I was being questioned for being gay!!

For one thing, I have said it again and again. I have NOT made up my mind as of yet on this whole Irag war subject. Did you read that??? I have not said I have come to a final conclusion. I am researching this. I'm giving my thoughts on this issue. Did you read that in my threads before you attack me on my opinions??

I did explain the fact that Sadaam being found and justifiably killed was a good thing to come out of the war. I also mentioned previously that women being able to have freedom to vote, closer to being counted as first class citizens, was a good outcome. I have heard and read various comments of U.S. soldiers. They have explained the good that has come out of this. Citizens of Iraq have thanked them for what they have done. They (the Iraqis') have felt a sense of a more free country, even though much more needs to be done in that sad country. Some of the citizens of Iraq have explained that they now have more hope- hope that they did not have before. Many U.S. Soldiers have been thanked by the Iraqi people. Also, we have been able to stop further terrorists from continued bombings in this country. But I do ask the question. Is it due to the war, or our intelligence right here in America? These are some of the things I am seeking answers to.

On the other side, yes, I see the bloodshed of innocent people. I see that after no weapons of mass destruction were found, we remained there after that. I see how Bush has possibly entered this war on his own terms as revenge - to finish what his father did not finish during Bush Sr's administration.

I see all sides of this. I want to say one thing. I believe,we can't be against a particular war just due to the bloodshed. In any war, there will be casualties, whether it be the soldiers or innocent citizens. That is horrible. I do not joy in that at all!! But if a war IS necessary, unfortunately, that type of situation can not be avoided. But if the war was done illegally, and without just cause, it is absurd and evil! I am in agreement with that. I believe that war should be a LAST RESORT. And it looks like this war was not a last resort. It looks as if we went into this when another option could have been used. On the other hand, it seemed necessary to go into war at the time.

Did Bush know about the fact that no weapons existed in Irag? Or was he incorrectly informed and then he continued with the war in spite of this received knowlege. I do not like Bush and would not vote for him again, if he could run, belive me!! But I am not convinced whether he lied or if he was just given the wrong information. But I do believe that it is time to set a time table to get out of there. Enough is enough. It is becoming another Vietnam war.

Now, I could have explained all of this earlier, but just the mention of my dilemma of unsurity of the war, caused Jamie to come out of the wood work and spew his unwelcome words to me. My point, then, became not about the war, it was about expressing my views. I felt I was being shunned before I could even further explain.

I have enjoyed this forum until now. There is no need to respond to this message. I am sure some of you have your thoughts and will continue to express them concerning my statements. That is good. Continue on. But now I know that any further opinions I may have concerning other topics may experience the same results. I choose not to fight a loosing battle. It is good to choose ones battles. Not all battles are worth fighting for. I will miss some of the soulforce members. One in particular has my email address, and I look forward to continue our conversations. You know who you are. :)

For the most part, this is an awsome format for the GLBT community. I've enjoyed it here, really I have. Those of you that are tolerable and have a heart to listen to all valid points on any given issue, carry on! God bless you all.

Do you even own a TV?

[paul]

But I will say one thing. Yes, Jamie did attack me personally whether you say he did or not. He said that if I did support the war, then I am no friend of Soulforce. Many of you are missing the whole point.

Matthew,

Please consider that it may be you who is missing the point.

You condradict your self. On the one hand you point out that you do not support the war, are undecided. On the other hand, you claim to have been attacked because you support the war.

I will re-read these posts again, but so far, I have only seen the position of supporting the war 'attacked.' Since you entered the conversation, the only person I have seen make a personal attack on someone is you.

[matthewspeed]

Ok, I will post one last thread.

How can I be the one attacking? You defend Jamie. Jamie used his position as a Soulforce staff member to say that I am not a friend of Soulforce if I am for the war. Even WITHOUT an explanation of my opinion, that statement was said.

Don't any of you get my point here? I have to laugh!! It cracks me up.

Whether you think I made sense of my opinion or not, I simply said that I was not 100% sure if the war was unnecessary. Just by saying that, I am told I am not a friend of Soulforce. Don't you see how wrong that is? I recently stated my reasons. Did you read that?? Did it ever occur to any of you that I am looking for help on this issue. If you are so much more knowledgable, than inform me. I will listen! I want to learn. I want to make the right choices.

As for my "Drama." C'mon!. It seems that the reason I am being so "Dramatic" in your eyes is because you disagree with me. If It were the other way around, and Jamie was for the war and I made a statement against the war, you guys would most likely see my point. Lets be honest here.


All I wanted to do was state my opinion and any other viewpoints would be welcome whether they were in agreement to my viewpoints or not. If this was done constructively. But it wasn't. Pablo is the ONLY one that has responded with maturity and respect. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but he would never just diss me because he thought my reasoning was incorrect. He would provide the information he had. I would listen. His reponses makes me re think a lot of issues. I have always been humble enough to admit I am wrong. I always take others viewpoints into consideration and weigh all the facts. I can admit when I am wrong.

If I seemed upset and irritated, I was. If any of you feel I acted unfairly, then please forgive me. That is not my intention. I am easy to get along with, really.

I just want all of us to be heard and any of us responding to other's threads should be respectful. I feel we need to have a spirit of willingness and constructivness.

Thank you for hearing me out.

-Matthew

[Zerbie]

Don't any of you get my point here? I have to laugh!! It cracks me up.

Whether you think I made sense of my opinion or not, I simply said that I was not 100% sure if the war was unnecessary. Just by saying that, I am told I am not a friend of Soulforce. Don't you see how wrong that is?

That did not happen. Because you are (so you state) open to arguments both for and against the war, you do not qualify as a supporter of this war, by your own assertion. Therefore, YOU were never told you were not a friend of SF.

. Pablo is the ONLY one that has responded with maturity and respect.

Oh thanks a lot. :mad:

I shouldn't have wasted my time trying to be friendly with you then. Lesson learned.


. I am easy to get along with, really.


That has become very difficult to believe.

[keltic63]

Ok, I will post one last thread.

How can I be the one attacking? You defend Jamie. Jamie used his position as a Soulforce staff member to say that I am not a friend of Soulforce if I am for the war. Even WITHOUT an explanation of my opinion, that statement was said.

You are narrow minded and extremely arrogant

Your words about Jamie, in red. How is this not a personal attack? YOU took Jamie's words from a much earlier time, and made them personal. He did not address YOU in particular in that post. However, he did restate Soulforce's stance.



Don't any of you get my point here? I have to laugh!! It cracks me up.

Whether you think I made sense of my opinion or not, I simply said that I was not 100% sure if the war was unnecessary. Just by saying that, I am told I am not a friend of Soulforce. Don't you see how wrong that is? I recently stated my reasons. Did you read that?? Did it ever occur to any of you that I am looking for help on this issue. If you are so much more knowledgable, than inform me. I will listen! I want to learn. I want to make the right choices.

I've noted that many have responded to you. Did you not find help in their words and information?

As for my "Drama." C'mon!. It seems that the reason I am being so "Dramatic" in your eyes is because you disagree with me. If It were the other way around, and Jamie was for the war and I made a statement against the war, you guys would most likely see my point. Lets be honest here.

the reason I'm calling you on your drama is because that's exactly what it is. You pulled up an old thread, that had a certain context because of the member who started it. You found Jamie's response, personalized it to yourself, and called him out on it. Now, when several of our members disagree with you, and the way you've handled this, you pull out the "I'm leaving" speech. and you have left 3 times now. do you want us to beg you to stay? Are you sure that this one issue is "make it, or break it" for your association with Soulforce?

You have been a great contributor here, why pull up and move on over this issue, when there are matters that may be more pressing to the glbt cause, and in which you may be able to do some good with your fellow soulforcers?


All I wanted to do was state my opinion and any other viewpoints would be welcome whether they were in agreement to my viewpoints or not. If this was done constructively. But it wasn't. Pablo is the ONLY one that has responded with maturity and respect. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but he would never just diss me because he thought my reasoning was incorrect. He would provide the information he had. I would listen. His reponses makes me re think a lot of issues. I have always been humble enough to admit I am wrong. I always take others viewpoints into consideration and weigh all the facts. I can admit when I am wrong.

You have stated your opinion. Others have disagreed. The only disrespect I've seen is from you, from the start of your involvement in this thread.


If I seemed upset and irritated, I was. If any of you feel I acted unfairly, then please forgive me. That is not my intention. I am easy to get along with, really.

I just want all of us to be heard and any of us responding to other's threads should be respectful. I feel we need to have a spirit of willingness and constructivness.

Thank you for hearing me out.

-Matthew

I do believe you've acted unfairly here. You called Jamie out; he responded with what I believe to be a position that is consistent with the goals of Soulforce. You can believe that the war is just and necessary; you can express your doubt about the war. Indeed, someone pointed out that you've said both things. many have offered facts, links, opinions, and explanations of their posts. You don't seem to want to listen, you just want to berate Jamie.

Shall I stone him publicly, or can I do it in private? ;)

[paul]

I just want all of us to be heard...

Thank you for hearing me out.

-Matthew

So far I have counted 3 last posts Matthew. I hope it is a sign of things to come.

Oh, and Peebles, are you going to register in on this one?

[matthewspeed]

Ok guys/gals!!

I know, I know. I said I was leaving the group and I keep coming back for more!!

Ok, I will drop this. I don't want to make enemies! I am a very passionate person. But I have always been very diplomatic. I love to hear others viewpoints even if I drastically disagree. It helps me to grow.

I have friends of many different persuations and beliefs. Some I fervently agree with and others I fervently do not!! But I always strive to allow ALL views on the table for discussion. FAIRNESS. That is all I want.

We all know what Jamie said. We all know I don't agree. But thats ok! I'm sure if I sat down with Jamie and he explained all of his reasons for his statement, I would have a better understanding. Even if I continued not to agree. I can respect that. I do respect his passion. Anyone that has passion for what they believe in and is not afraid to speak it out, deserves respect and admiration. Jamie, If you are reading this, fogive me for calling you narrow minded and arrogant. I'm sure if Jamie and I met, we would get along fine.


On a side note. I hate this damn war! I hate bloodshed! If I found documents or evidence to prove Bushes illegal activity concerning the war, then I would want him punished. Plain and simple! All of you PLEASE understand one thing. I am ALWAYS in search of truth. I just don't like to believe something because I heard it on the nightly news. I don't trust the media. That is why I am always looking elsewhere for more information on the war and on other issues.

In saying that, anyone else I might have offended, please forgive me. Zerbie, you seem to be offended. Please forgive me. I consider all of you my friends regardless of your viewpoints. That because I know one thing about all of us. We all want justice and fairness. We want to stop oppression. Thats the commmon thread we all have. We just all may have different ways and ideas of getting there.

Seriously, thank you for hearing me out people!

Can we all hug and make up?? Please??

-Matthew

[keltic63]

Can we all hug and make up?? Please??

-Matthew

I'm first in line! Pucker up! :love::D:love:

[matthewspeed]

Pucker up? I said Hug, not kiss! LOL. Thats fine, you can kiss me. I know your taken, so a friendship kiss will do. I don't want to start another fight!! :)

[Emproph]

But there happens to be actual human beings like ourselves, whom at this very moment, are either attempting to detangle themselves from the intestines of a loved one, or attempting to recover from the memory of having done so.

Are you familiar with this Matthew? Point of impact comes @ 59 seconds into it. "America is under attack."

AKA:

Sir, all 300 million of your children are in imminent danger.
5WztB6HzXxI

BEST CASE SCENARIO, he froze in a moment of crisis and is incompetent.

NEXT CASE SCENARIO, he knew perfectly well that the rest of us weren't in any danger.

Again. Are you at least familiar with this fact of 9/11 Matthew?

[Jamie McDaniel]

Matthew, I did not want to quarrel with you. Dr. King would routinely remind the black community, whenever there was infighting, that they must stick together in their march toward freedom and equality.

If you have experienced rejection for who you are as a gay man at a former church, then is it possible that your finding this thread (where someone got banned from the Soulforce forums) triggered your response? I ask, because a) you stated I was "no different than the religious right" and b) it seems, as others have noted, that you took this three-month-old thread very personally.

progo35 was here for several months before the moderator team finally revoked her posting privileges. That decision was not because she did not join with Soulforce in calling for an end to the war. It's not like we have a requirement for anti-war activism. But I will say that her actively posting the rhetoric of FOX News regarding the war heavily contributed to my vote for a ban. If organizations with Dr. King on the banner aren't strong allies of the peace movement during such a time as this, then God help us.

In any event, you have full access to the forums. You can sign-up for a Soulforce action. You can vigil for LGBT equality outside the United Methodist General Conference next month - just the same as anyone.

[Pablo Rafael]

...then listening to this argument has been quite worthwhile.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not taken. No need for a "friendship" kiss. :D (Whatever THAT is.)

[Emproph]

Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN

6BEsZMvrq-I

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

DICK CHENEY: No.

Q: Why not?

DICK CHENEY: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

[matthewspeed]

This debate going on is healthy. I appreciate both sides, because I am really getting more information. I have listened to many new articles and facts concerning this war over the months and years, but some of you have really done your homework. This is helping me with the whole moral dilemma of the Iraq war. Even though there has been some good outcomes (very few, it seems) to the war, I do see how OUR interests were mainly at stake. If Saadam has been mass murdering his people for years prior and we had full knowleged, where was our interests of protecting the people of Iraq then? All of a sudden, we felt this need to rid Iraq of Saadam. I am glad he is gone, but he should have been wiped out years ago. It is said that during WWII, we knew of Hitlers death camps, but we did nothing. We finally intervened and liberated the victims of the Nazi camps. That was the good and moral thing to do, but if we had knowlege of that already, what stopped us from intervening earlier, when the information was known?

I just want to say one thing. When all of our troups come back home when the war is finally over, I hope we do not treat them the same way the Vietnam veterans were treated. They deserve our respect and honor.

I despise war. But as I said before, sometimes war is justified if it means defending our nation against possible attacks. Not that this war is justifiable, but I need to know as an American citizen that we have a strong military in the event that an attack on our country is apparent.

[paul]

I just want to say one thing. When all of our troups come back home when the war is finally over, I hope we do not treat them the same way the Vietnam veterans were treated. They deserve our respect and honor.

I despise war. But as I said before, sometimes war is justified if it means defending our nation against possible attacks. Not that this war is justifiable, but I need to know as an American citizen that we have a strong military in the event that an attack on our country is apparent.

Those in power are responsible for how they use that power. We as citizens are responsible for holding those who are using that power accountable. Ultimately, we (collectively) are the power that 'officials' wield. If both sides are being responsible, it's harder for abuse to occur.

I don't buy in to the notion that we should go to war because a few people tell us to. I think there will be fewer wars, maybe none, when people refuse to simply follow the leader but rather insist on knowing the purpose behind any action. Historically, we find out the reasons for our wars after the fact...if ever. How do we stop this cycle? I don't think we can ever hope to stop the cycle by maintaining the status quo.

We will never do the right thing as long as we are moved by fear. If we cannot determine that we are doing the right thing, how can we expect respect? How can we respect ourselves?

[matthewspeed]

Well said Paul. The constitution of the United States says ..."We the People.." It is OUR country, not the governments. The government is to serve the people, not the other way around. It is a priveledge to be in government leadership, because, we, the people are the ones who vote them into office.