This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

A Grieving Mother's Plea

Thank You Sarkazein for contributing this.

Even though Obama campaigned with righteous indignation regarding the war in Afghanistan he now dithers. Many bought the absurd illusion that he was a leader despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. The consequence is a more dangerous world and a military that is becoming more and more disillusioned as our President searches for a core belief.

I barely got through it. I like to think I'm a burly manly man but I cried like a baby for the mother, sister, wife, future child and our country.

111 comments:

Liberal POV said...

HD

This is the reality of war's raw truth.

I'm not sure what this grieving mother means by "They either need to come home or they need to end it"

I don't believe there are any good answers to the War in Afghanistan only answers that cause the least harm.

Those that understand the geography and history of that part of the world the least seem the most certain in their convictions as to simple answers.

Please don't play partisan politics with this sad issue. What do you think should be done in Afghanistan?

How many more mothers and wives will experience such pain in addition to the over 5000 men and women that have died so far?

BikerBard said...

The previous moron we had as president jumped into the Middle East without thinking. I appreciate a thinking President who now considers all options first.

guy faulkes said...

Obama's hesitancy has sent a signal of surrender to the terrorists. This encourages them to commit terrorist acts in this country as proven by the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. More and worse attacks will follow (as indicated by Biden in his statement that Obama would be tested.)

We do need to end the support of terrorism in Afghanistan. To do this we are going to have to be much more aggressive than Bush was in Iraq. We cannot worry about collateral damage. If our troops are attacked from a mosque, then that mosque needs to become a smoking hole in the ground. If the terrain is such that we cannot fight them effectively on the ground, bomb them out with everything up to and including nukes if that is what it takes to make them realize an attack on this country will only wind up in their deaths.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Those that understand the geography and history of that part of the world the least seem the most certain in their convictions as to simple answers.

Sarkazein said...

POV--

The mother is saying...QUIT VOTING PRESENT YOU SISSY, AND TAKE A STAND! The General said what they needed to keep from loosing. If you are not going to win it, you sissy, don't spend another life.

like that

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Obama is asking the question, what's in America's best interest?
Is the cost of continuing worth the cost?

Obama is asking what's the right strategy? What's best for America and the world?

When do we leave? What will a victory look like?
What happens in Pakistan if we continue the war does it become more stable or less? What happens in Pakistan if we leave?

These are questions not ask often over the last eight years by Bush

After six years the American forces are scene the same as the Russian forces.
There won't be an easy or perfect answer people will continue to die with either answer.
Sorry if being thoughtful inconveniences you.

Like I said to Guy.
Those that understand the geography and history of that part of the world the least seem the most certain in their convictions as to simple answers.

Honest Debate said...

I inferred "end it" to mean doing what Guy Faulkes proposed. That would end it.

Obama picked his General. The General has made his recommendation. The President is looking for a half measure. Look for him to play poker with soldiers. If McChrystal wants 60,000 Obama will offer 34,000, might go 40. Look for the "let's pull out altogether" crowd to exert more pressure with Obama's indecision. The enemy grows more emboldened by the minute.

I'm starting to think it's time for General McChrystal make a stand and resign.

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote- "Obama is asking the question, what's in America's best interest? Yawn
Is the cost of continuing worth the cost? Yawn

Obama is asking what's the right strategy? Yawn What's best for America and the world?"Zzzzzz

Who the &*%$ is he asking, he's your President, the C-I-C. It is reported the people he was asking presented their opinions and he didn't accept them.

That's why I have to work for myself. If my employer asked me to give my opinion, then said "no, go back and modify it, that's not what I wanted to hear", I'd tell him to write it himself then, and why did you ask?
Obama didn't say no to his advisors, he didn't say yes, he said "present".
I warned you, he's not an executive. Never was, never will be.
This is not a decision to go to war or not, we are already there. Your comment would be correct if we weren't there yet.
Delayed decisions can be more dangerous than timely decisions, unless the guy is known for bad decisions, and we don't even know about his decision powers because he's never been a decider before. There are rumors of his laziness, we are getting an example of that.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have weak corrupt Political leaders.
Both have economies based on drugs bound for the US. The anti foreigner sentiment grows daily.
How do we justify defending or imposing these corrupt leaders?
More troops mean more targets.

Obama asking for a new strategy makes sense.
Others with military knowledge disagree with General McChrystal. McChrystal is the one who covered up the death of the football player. Obama may need to replace McChrystal.

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote- "Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have weak corrupt Political leaders."


HELLO! Weak, look at Obama. Corrupt, look at the massive pay-offs to friends of Obama disguised as stimulus. Obama has bought Nigeria/Chicago to the US government. Look at all the Congressmen under ethics and criminal investigation.

Sarkazein said...

POV- The Obama picked McChrystal. Did he not know those things, was he other-wise pre-occupied at the time?

Sarkazein said...

Did Obama sign up with the Chicago Democrat Socialist Party in 1995 or 1996 ?

Liberal POV said...

Sark

"POV-The Obama picked McChrystal. "

" When the facts change, I change my mind"
-John Maenad Keynes

When it comes to the Middle East, great leadership would be to know what they don't know.

I know you and Guy don't have such a problem because you know everything.

When faced with difficult geopolitical issues the war mongering conservative answer is always kill more people with bigger bombs.

How are American Conservatives different from Al Qaeda? Both want to bombs on civilians populations to achieve political objectives. Both have religious extremist.

guy faulkes said...

Terrorist supporting POV: "How are American Conservatives different from Al Qaeda? Both want to bombs on civilians populations to achieve political objectives. Both have religious extremist."

This one is pretty bad, even for you. The difference is that the terrorists instigated the use of violence by their own violent actions. As with any bully, they have to be taught conclusively that this is unacceptable behavior. There is an old saying that if you open the door to violence, you have no complaint when more violence comes through the door than you anticipated. American Conservatives of all parties do not start fights. They finish them. They end it.

Sarkazein said...

Terrorist supporting POV: "How are American Conservatives different from Al Qaeda?


The sad thing is, he really doesn't know... he's stupit.

Sarkazein said...

POV quotes others: "" When the facts change, I change my mind"
-John Maenad Keynes (Socialist economist)

FACTS don't change. Iterpretations of information change.


FACT: we are in a shooting war in Afghanistan.
FACT: Obama has not honored his own Generals request.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Obama is Commander in Chief not General McChrystal and their are other generals and Middle East experts that disagree with General McChrystal.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

We are in their ( Afghans) country as invaders or occupiers ( mostly Christians) which gives the extremist Al Qeada an advantage. We have replaced the Russians as foreign occupiers.

Guy
"The difference is that the terrorists instigated the use of violence by their own violent actions."

Does this mean the United States is justified in using similar tactic of targeting civilians by using more and bigger bombs? Is your theory to just keep killing sooner or later we will kill the unidentified terrorist? Is it your theory this action will be ignored by the rest of the worlds 1.4 billion Muslims?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

" American Conservatives of all parties do not start fights. They finish them. They end it."


Would you list those?


World War II Three years won Democrat

Bosnia one year won Democrat

Lebanon Retreat Republian

Vietnam 10 years Retreat Republican

Korea 50 plus Unresolved

Iraq 1 Unresolved Republican

Iraq 2 six years unresolved Republican

Afganastan 6 years unresolved Republican

Honest Debate said...

"Obama is Commander in Chief not General McChrystal and their are other generals and Middle East experts that disagree with General McChrystal." -LiberalPOV

Who? Are you talking about the enemy's Generals?

guy faulkes said...

POV, we were not talking about Republicans and Democrats. We were talking about conservatives and liberals. Being Republican does not make you conservative nor does being Democrat make you liberal.

Again, Focus....Focus! Maybe you can improve your information retention disorder.

guy faulkes said...

POV, I explained my theory. Repeating it will not enable you to understand it any better. Those remedial reading classes I recommended would really help you.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"" American Conservatives of all parties do not start fights. They finish them. They end it."
"

Please list those?

guy faulkes said...

The Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, The War for Texas Independence, the Spanish American War, The First World War, The Second World War, Grenada, the first war in Iraq. the Second war in Iraq was nearly won until the Obama administration took over but as Bush was not a conservative, that one does not count.

BikerBard said...

Do not confuse hesitation with the ability to evaluate and deliberate, and facts DO change.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Lets see if I understand your logic?

Anything sucessful is conseravitive anything unsecessful is liberal?

No matter that the Torys were the conservatives.

Now Reagan's war on the eight mile long island of Grenada was one to be proud of. Reagan showed Lebanon , you kill 200 plus of our marines and by God we'll attack Grenada. Yelp! That's conservative logic.

guy faulkes said...

POV,

No, Nixon was conservative as was Kennedy. Kennedy got us into Vietnam. Nixon pulled us out without a victory. Of course Nixon could be considered liberal in many ways including his collaboration with communist China.

They Tories were not conservative by the modern meaning of the term. The Revolutionary War was over excessive taxation by an oppressive government. It started with a battle over gun control when the British met the Patriots at Concord on their way to disarm the citizens of Lexington. Sound familiar?

So you are saying those that died in Granada died in vain? Not surprising considering your support of terrorism.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

The 200 Marines were killed in Lebanon in a terrorist attack after which Reagan oulled out of Lebanon and attack Grenada.

Reagan was also selling weapons to extremist in Iran during this time.

I'm just pointing out how silly your statement " American Conservatives of all parties do not start fights. They finish them. They end it."
" is.

Who started that fight in Iraq and Grenada?

bridle said...

POV, Don't you just love it when Guy and others so cavalierly prate about going all out and ignoring "collateral damage"? Like children playing games, they wave their flags and spout their bellicose nonsense with no understanding of the reality covered up by those simple-minded slogans.
It reminds me of Mark Twain's "War Prayer."
O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

Liberal POV said...

Bridle

Good timing on the Mark Twain "War Prayer"

Interesting those that claim the most religion often have the least compassion.

guy faulkes said...

Bridle, it is interesting that you put the well being of those that encourage terrorism by their failure to oppose it over the well being of our troops.

Mark Twain whose real name was Samuel Clemmins was a brilliant satirist. This does not mean his opinions were correct in every case. Many disapproved of his move to the west to avoid the Civil War. On one occasion he left town in the dark of night after he made what was considered slanderous and libelous comments on a man that then challenged him to a duel.

As a matter of fact, I can remember those on the left wanting to ban Tom Sawyer and Hucklberry Finn because they felt the books contained racial slurs.

As we are quoting literature to prove points, I feel Tommy by Rudyard Kipling represents the left's opinion of our troops and what our troops think of it.


Tommy

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

Sarkazein said...

POV writes:"Obama is Commander in Chief not General McChrystal and their are other generals and Middle East experts that disagree with General McChrystal."


Name the active Generals that have publicly challenged Gen McChrystal's requests. Forget the experts, just the Generals. I would like to read their statements or opinions they published.

bridle said...

Guy, You with your mindless parroting of neocon distortions are dishonoring the soldiers. You are the one who is casual about sending soldiers back to war 2,3,4, or more times because "they volunteered.". In fact by invading Iraq, torturing Muslims, allowing and condoning the hellish crimes of Guantanamo and Abu Graib, the neocons have created a climate where terrorism flourishes. We are sowing dragon's teeth and the promise of endless war and misery.
You prate of fighting terrorism, but in fact you are supporting war profiteers,corruption,evil,and the power-hungry scum who send other people's children to die and kill.
Our soldiers are good men and women who volunteered to protect freedom and democracy. You are spitting on that sacrifice when you talk so carelessly of the "collateral damage." I have seen what it does to the young men and women who have been to war. They are damaged not only by the wounds they sustained, but by the horrible things they had to do, the "collateral damage" that is inevitable in war.
You really piss me off, in case you can't tell.

guy faulkes said...

You really piss me off, in case you can't tell. - bridle

I can tell. Fortunately, I do not care. You are certainly entitled to your unpatriotic opinions. It is you that do not want collateral damage to people in a war zone that do not oppose terrorism at the cost of the well being of our troops. You have said so in the last two posts. As the poem says, "An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!".

bridle said...

How about this one Guy - you self-proclaimed patriot?
"WAR is a racket. It always has been.It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious......Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations."
Since we are quoting literature, do you know who wrote the above?

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- Bridal thinks we own Germany, Japan, Italy, S.Korea, Iraq, Kuwait, Grenada, Panama, all the south Pacific Islands, all the Arab countries, Africa and on and on. Part of the 57 states Obama speaks of maybe.

" most vicious......Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it."- Bridal

"...This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes."Bridal

Are you writing about the Nazi concentration camps, the rape of Nanking, Sadaams rape rooms the things war put a stop to before they kicked down your front door?

Sarkazein said...

" Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations."-Bridal


Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

guy faulkes said...

Since we are quoting literature, do you know who wrote the above? - POV

Smedley Butler about World War I.
Butler was a Marine Corps General. He certainly earned his right to an opinion as not many have won two Medals of Honor. I do not think his pamphlet qualifies as literature, but if we are quoting generals, I prefer George S. Patton, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton won the Battle of the Bulge and believed a short furious battle cost less lives than a long drawn out one.

Actually, I am proud to say a few people have called me a patriot, even some that disagree with me on many issues.

Sarkazein said...

Bridal-

I thought that was your quote. If you are going to tell me who's quote it is, hopefully it is not some old old quote that does not have modern history.

bridle said...

Guy are you under the impression that a short furious battle could ever be successful in a country such as Afghanistan, or Iraq? Where we as occupiers are surrounded by Muslim countries who believe we are trying to steal their oil? Do you have any idea of the difficulty of getting supplies for our soldiers into Afghanistan over the Khyber Pass? Do a Google image search to get a feel for that terrain. Why do you think Obama is trying to court Russia? Because we need bases in their territory to maintain our supply lines. Even if we could bomb and kill every tribal leader or every male who resents foreigners, we would be creating hatred and resentment in all the rest of the world that would destroy our children's futures.
Iraq was clearly a case of attempted theft - planned in 1997 before Bush was placed in office. We could have been successful perhaps in Afghanistan with sufficient resources and planning at the outset. But after all the killing, corruption, and mismanagement of the past 8 years, it may be too late.
And besides, our military is strained to the breaking point. Did you see Pennsylvania's governor on Meet the Press? He said it then, "They are wasted".

Anonymous said...

Sark, It is indeed a quote by General Smedley Butler, two time Medal of Honor winner who saw first hand the corruption of the capitalists who profit by war. He experienced first-hand and spoke against the evils of war and unrestrained capitalism. Look it up - "War is a Racket".

Sarkazein said...

Smedley Butler USMC died in 1940. Pre- WW2

I think he would have been out there killing Nazis and today killing Jihadist if he was still alive and able.

guy faulkes said...

Bridle, you are under the impression we are at war with Afghanistan. We are not. We are, or were before Obama's capitulation to terrorism, at war with terrorists. We need to find them and destroy them. Quickly, and permanently. The only people throughout the world that would hate us would be terrorists and terrorist sympathizers such s POV and possibly you.

Our military is not strained to the breaking point. There is a waiting list for volunteers. I would agree our military is wasted when they are forced to fight a war they are not allowed to win. That is the fault of Congress, the Administration, and those that want to be loved even during a war, not the military.

I am not a fan of Bush, but even you and I will have to admit his policies concerning the war on terror prevented attacks in this country until the Obama hesitancy / capitulation emboldened the Fort Hood terrorist.

Again, I prefer Patton over Butler.

Sarkazein said...

Bridal wrote- "Iraq was clearly a case of attempted theft - planned in 1997 before Bush..."


Could you make that a little more clearly, who was the thief, what were they stealing ? Just curious.

Sarkazein said...

Bridal-

I don't know anyone that does not realize the evils of war. Gen Smedley Butler doesn't appear in the five chapters of "War is a Racket" that I read (at your suggestion) to be anti-capitalist, unbridled or not. Your statement reads that he was more than what he wrote. I am guessing he was not a Socialist or Communist., or even an anti-capitalist.
I for one, appreciate companies like Raytheon (RTN) for building Cruise Missiles. They help defend me.

I guess that is why I cannot relate Gen Butler's writings to WW2 or the War on Terrorist.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Please explain how we determine who the terrorist are?

It would be much easier and some of your theories might work if we knew who the enemy was.

Do you have ideas on that?

The harsher we are on the general population the less accurate information we have.

Study those mountains around all major cities.

How about infrastructure? How difficult would it be to cut water, power, roads, food and other supplies to the US forces ?

Your lack of knowledge make you much more assured of your views.

Those advising the president have far more knowledge than you and each side has uncertainties and reconizes the weakness of their argument.There're no easy answers or perfect answers.

The larger the forces the more this becomes a risk.

guy faulkes said...

POV, if you do not know by now that the principle terrorists with which we are concerned are radical militant Muslims that practice lesser jihad, then you are hopeless. You capture members of these groups and interrogate them to find other members. Oh, I forgot. You support terrorists so you claim they cannot be interrogated. You do not worry about collateral damage if it is necessary to kill or capture these terrorists.

The terrain is difficult. So what? We have dealt with difficult terrain before and can again. I can understand that someone with your perspective would have little faith in our troops. However I am certain they can do anything required of them.

The tactical issues you mention are overcome in every conflict we fight. No conflict is without problems unique to that conflict. We let our generals deal with these problems. We do not put our troops in a place, hamper how they fight, and prevent them from winning.

I would suggest you get the reading list for the War College and start through it. You might be able to make an intelligent argument.

bridle said...

Sark - The Iraq war was planned before Mr. Bush was placed into office. The purpose of this invasion was to gain control over the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. See this link. click here
Note especially this phrase.
"For that provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes;"
Note that the signers of the mission statement include almost the entire cabinet of the future president Bush.
click here

bridle said...

Guy, You are the antithesis of a true Patriot. You represent the worst of fear-mongers and demagogues everywhere. Every time you accuse POV or myself or anyone who disagrees with you of anti-americanism or loving terrorists, you ally yourself with our local demagogue the "honorable" representative Virginia Foxx in destroying the American ideals of free speech and diversity. Instead of E Pluribus Unum, your motto is divide and conquer. Senator Joe McCarthy was another such as yourself. You would bring back the tragedy and the shame of those times.

RV said...

Bridle, thank you for posting Mark Twain's War Prayer, painful as it is. It says most eloquently that there are no right answers in war, let alone easy answers.

bridle said...

RV - You're welcome

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Hey nice work on the click link thing.

Obviously, "The Iraq war was planned before Mr. Bush was placed into office." Here is the first sentence in the summary of the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 H.R. 4655" that Bill Clinton signed into law:

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998- Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

Did the oil thing happen? That faction lost the argument to other factions that you don't cite. It's a shame.

bridle said...

Guy - Bush prevented terror attacks???!!!
After warnings from the FBI, The CIA, and every foreign intelligence in the world, as well as explicit and emphatic warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration,(citations supplied upon request) Bush permitted the world trade center attacks 9 months into his regime! 3,000 Americans dead at one blow. And since then over 4,000 more American dead and 30,000 more wounded as a direct result of his mis-management! Not to mention the economic collapse under his watch. Heck, Osama didn't have to lift a finger;Mr Bush did a great job of destroying this country without foreign help.

bridle said...

Did the oil thing happen? Of course it did. What factions are you talking about?

Isaack Assimove said...

Faux:
Mark Twain's real name was Samuel Langhorn Clemens. You got it wrong (as usual.) I love it when you attempt to sound intelligent - some good laughs there!

guy faulkes said...

bridle, when you stop supporting terrorism, I might care about your opinion of me. I doubt it, but I might. It really does not matter that you think that I am not a patriot or that I think that you are a traitor.

I assume that you must have changed your mind as you are now saying our military losses were to great. The only way to have lowered them would have been to increase collateral damage.

BB, I like your new name, especially the ASS part. You are correct as to the spelling of Clemens name. Thank you.

Sarkazein said...

Bridal-

Your links of 1:14 do not support your accusations.
It is the same liberal claptrap that's been around for years, only you are pounding square pegs into round holes to prove your opinion. It doesn't fit.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

"For that provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes;"

That oil thing. It did not happen. We did not exploit the oil even though we could have. The faction that you cite advocated for their outcome and other factions (Colon Powell etc.) advocated against it.

We didn't take the oil.

Robert Hineyland said...

That's it, girls. Now - all hold hands and fight Bridle together.

Don't thank me, Faux. It's (notice the usage, Sark) a pleasure to call your ignorance to your attention! ROTFLMAO!

Sarkazein said...

"Don't thank me, Faux. It's (notice the usage, Sark) a pleasure to call your ignorance to your attention! ROTFLMAO!"-BB

Can anybody translate that gibberish for me?
Beside the abbreviations of where BB keeps his humor.

Reader said...

BB is feeling inferior...again.

Sarkazein said...

BB is feeling inferior again.

Sarkazein said...

BB is feeling inferior again.

Liberal POV said...

Reader, Sark


"BB is feeling inferior again."


Is this the depth of your thinking and ideas today?

Simone Jester said...

At least BB's feelings are accurate this time.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

So far.

Sarkazein said...

Oh, except for this OBOWMA

bridle said...

HD - It's true that the blatant theft attempt was modified in favor of more subtle and convoluted schemes. The evidence strongly supports Butler's paradigm however. Exxon Mobil Profits If you like,I can look up Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater profit statements, and many other corporations with ties to the Bush administration that have profited from the Iraq debacle, at the cost of other people's blood.
Guy - Are you suggesting that I should be put to death? Calling me a terrorist and a traitor means you think I deserve the death penalty. It's your obligation to inform the FBI of such suspicions. No responsible sane adult would throw that kind of language around otherwise. Just because that kind of inflammatory witch-hunting became popularized by the mindless likes of Palin's angry mobs, and the theatrics of fruitcake wing-nuts such as Bachmann and Foxx doesn't make it acceptable in civilized society.

Sarkazein said...

It is amazing how the liberal mind works. Bridal, as with most liberals, want to give GITMO prisoners (terrorists) US Constitutional rights. Thus supporting terrorists, by equating them to Me and other US citizens. Someone says to a liberal (Bridal) "you support terrorists" and their mind translated that comment to "you are a terrorist". Close, but an exaggeration of a comment to try to defeat it.

Lefty terrorist supporting liberals wanted terrorists to be treated as POWs. They wanted to give them protection under the Geneva Conventions with POW status rights. Supporting their rights, even though as unlawful combatants, this goes against the rules and intent (to protect the rights of lawful combatants and non- combatants, but NOT illegal combatants) of the accords.
NOW, the same people they wanted to have POW status are going to be given a trial for their combat. Illegal in the Geneva Convention rules. A POW can only be tried for something he did as a prisoner.
Liberals (Bridal) want the best of all worlds for the terrorists, but is insulted when called a terrorist supporter.
Most liberals now, want Hasan to be treated like a criminal and not be treated as a traitor or unlawful combatant (which technically he is). That my liberal friend is support for terrorism.

Liberal POV said...

bridle

Hate addiction makes people do strange things. Mob mentality is the right description.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

"Bridal, as with most liberals, want to give GITMO prisoners (terrorists) US Constitutional rights. Thus supporting terrorists, by equating them to Me and other US citizens."

Try to get your head around a very simple FACT!

All of the detainees at both Abu Ghraib and GITMO were human beings in the custody of the United States Government as such were and are entitled to basic Human Rights. Torture is both a war crime and a criminal act.
Not all detainees were terrorist but suspects some turned over to the US for the large reward.

Some were children as young as 14.

Those FACTs have nothing to do with the US Constitution.
They are entitled to the same basic human rights that you're entitled to.

Choosing not to be a part of Dick Cheney's mob makes me and and others that stood for civilized behavior, Real American values, human decency the real patroits.
History will record yours and other conservatives as an example moral decay following a weak misguided leader.

How are you any different than those you hate?

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Those criminal acts you want to continue is why this war in Afganistan is going so badly. Those people ( Al Qeada )have been given the best propaganda tool they could have ever hoped for with Dick Cheney's prisoner treatment policy.

guy faulkes said...

bridal, you should not be put to death until the point in time that you physically attack this country and / or its citizens with a terrorist act. As a traitor, it is entirely within your rights to talk bad about your country, You just do not have the right to physically attack us. We do not have the right to instigate violence against you except in self defense. You see, conservatives believe in free speech. We do not give it lip service as do liberals.

It is certainly no worse for me to consider you a traitor than for you to say I am not a patriot.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

So both you terrorist supporters agree with my comment. Good. You don't like it, but, I seem to be OK with that.

You have harsher comments for Bush/Chenney, than Hasan or the other terrorists (now New Yorkers)... terrorist support. Be kind to our new neighbors.

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote- "Those criminal acts you want to continue is why this war in Afganistan is going so badly."


Speaks for itself, pre-excuses for OBOWMA'S ever growing legacy of failure and ineptness.

Liberal POV said...

Guy and Sark

Here's another of those thing that Chicken Hawk DICK Chency and you are wrong about.


"The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib may have done little to further American intelligence, however. Willie J. Rowell, who served for thirty-six years as a C.I.D. agent, told me that the use of force or humiliation with prisoners is invariably counterproductive. “They’ll tell you what you want to hear, truth or no truth,” Rowell said. “ ‘You can flog me until I tell you what I know you want me to say.’ You don’t get righteous information.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact?currentPage=4#ixzz0Wyv2uqTM"

BikerBard said...

Reader, Sark, et al:

Your feelings of superiority do not create my feelings. You have delusions of adequacy; I am just fine, thank you.

However, you Tea Bag Queens are pompous jerks. Now all of you girls hold hands and fight off the terrorists - Lib POV and Bridle. LOL!

bridle said...

Sark, Guy, and other torture apologists, Listen to Thomas Paine, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
It is marvelous and strange indeed that you would grant government the power to deprive a human of his natural and constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process of law, the power to torture and imprison anyone who is named a terrorist, without judicial review. You trust government to decide who is guilty and whom to torture, But you don't trust government to facilitate health care.
And yes...according to our constitution the government is mandated to promote the general welfare, while specifically prohibited from administering cruel and unusual punishment or from denying the rights to habeus corpus and a speedy trial. Citations supplied upon request.

Honest Debate said...

Bridal,

So now it's "subtle"? No, It didn't happen. You've been taken. It's a premise that has been accepted. It sounds so good. It's false. It's like saying the Bush administration had "ties" to Haliburton or any of the other companies you mention.

Exxon operates on a much smaller profit margin than most U.S. business'.

Liberal POV said...

HD

Your drinking the Kool Aid.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PainAtThePump/story?id=1841989

Honest Debate said...

Lib and Bridle,

This is great. I infer your collective argument to be that the iraq war was for oil. It was a way for the Bush administration to line the pockets of CEO buddies that Lib cites. It allowed excessive profit by Exxon during a time when Americans were hurting as expressed by Bridle.

Bridles evidence is that Exxon made money and Libs is that the CEO got a golden parachute. That's it.

Sorry fella's, not good enough. Spell it out for me. How did our stealing subtly oil in Iraq turn into profit for Exxon? How was Bush complicit? How does a profit automatically equal devious manipulation of the free market? Why obsess on profit and ignore the much more telling profit margin? How does a golden parachute automatically equal corruption? Aside from making you feel better, how does punishing CEO's affect you at all?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Please dude, you're mangling the "general welfare" clause. You cannot tell me that saddling the economy with this enormous entitlement promotes general welfare. Ditto governmental control.

While you're at it quit mangling conservatives position on torture, what is torture, where the condoned "torture" took place and the completely insane notion that torture doesn't work.

Sarkazein said...

Bridal-

My first guess is Paine's quote refers to one's political enemies and the passing of laws to control actions of one's political enemies may also take away one's own Devine rights to his own liberties. As in passing laws to ban guns, would take away your right to have one for security. I would be a political enemy of yours.

I am guessing Paine was not referring to the treatment of pirates. And, by the way, we have to treat our captured enemy with oppression, or they will leave the prison after they kill the guards. We treat our prisoners better than the Emperor of Japan treated theirs in WW2. The one Obowma met.

bridle said...

HD - You are OK with the massive debt from funding wars, but not debt from health care? And please clarify for me. Since domestic tranquility, common defense, establishing justice, and securing liberty are already covered under separate clauses, what could the general welfare possibly mean, if not health and education? How is that a stretch? It is clear to me that health care spending is an investment that will save trillions in the future. War spending will pay off with more war, and the downfall of this country.
And that thing about torture? You are torturing your self trying to justify pure evil. It's torture if the US prosecutes or condemns it when committed by other countries or regimes. It's torture if you would call it torture supposing it was happening to your child, or American soldiers. And saying it works? What a degenerate, pernicious excuse. Many things 'work'. If you are short of money; steal some. It works. If you are tired of your wife;kill her. It works. If your child cries too much, beat him. It works. But decent moral humans don't think or behave like that. It's people who think like you that are destroying all that used to be good about this country. The ends don't justify the means. The means pervert and destroy the ends.

bridle said...

Sark - you may guess and spin all you want. Paine expressed the American ideals quite clearly. Too bad they don't fit into your narrow little fascist world-view.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Just to tie up a few loose ends, Bush didn't pre-plan the war in Iraq, Clinton did. We did not take the oil for ourselves. The war was not about oil. You failed to convince me otherwise and could not spell it out.

Who said I was okay with debt? Not me. I do believe we are fighting for our civilization. I believe the Constitution not only allows but requires us to win. The Constitution does not mention health care, and please enough with the general welfare clause.

Who said I condone torture? Not me. I claim as a point of fact that it works and has worked to save lives. Doesn't that have to be acknowledged in any honest debate? I also question that water boarding is torture as we do it to our own men. When I think of torture I'm more inclined to remember the wood chipper we had in the basement of Abu Graib. The lucky ones went in head first. Oh wait that wasn't us it was Sadaam. There was no torture at Gitmo just three men water boarded. Thankfully, the "Library Tower" in LA still stands and thousands were saved because of the water boarding. I support that. I do not condone torture. See, no contradiction.

Sarkazein said...

Bridal-

After spending an evening reading Thomas Paine, I am not absolutely certain of my understanding of his "enemies" comment, but am more certain than before reading.
Paine's Dissertation on First Principals of Government is where the quote derives. It is the last paragraph. I still believe he was not writing of combat enemies, but anyone's political enemies. For instance you voting to tax the crap out of an industry you are jealous of, because the next voters may evolve into a majority group that wants to tax the crap out of your business or farm or other property.

One of the things I like about comments from some liberals is that they insight research. Having been out of school for a decade or more, things sometimes need to be reread to appreciate their relevance to current events.
OH, and it's not fascist spin, as Thomas Paine was about as far from being a fascist as I.

bridle said...

HD - I agreed with you. Torture "works". People will say or do anything you want them to. You would even agree with me, if you were waterboarded 150 times. Genocide also "works". Guy would have our government blow Afghanistan to kingdom come (Guy said "We cannot worry about collateral damage.... including nukes if that is what it takes ..") That doesn't make it right. Or even intelligent. If this country is worth fighting for, it must stand for something better than torture and genocide. And really stop splitting hairs about torture. The definition is pretty clear, and there is no doubt that what occurred in Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo was torture. torture legal definition

bridle said...

HD - There is nothing in Paine's First Principles that promotes exceptions for any class of person, in fact he makes the opposite quite clear.
Here's some wool for your wheel. Try to spin Agrarian Justice as anything besides a liberal, nay, progressive call to "spread the wealth" by taxing the rich and giving the money to the poor.

Sarkazein said...

Bridal-
"There is nothing in Paine's First Principles that promotes exceptions for any class of person, in fact he makes the opposite quite clear."-Bridal


So you are thinking that Paine thought criminals, pirates, British soldiers, were in the same class of people as the Patriots?

Sarkazein said...

Bridal-

I am thinking Paine was referring to economic, racial, and birth classes being equal, but not pirates and the barbaric British enemy at the time. But who knows, maybe he was a pacifist hippy. I don't think so.

bridle said...

Sark - Paine makes it very clear that "the rights of men in society are neither divisible, nor transferable, nor annihilable. Paine and the other founding fathers understood that unless every one has equal rights to justice under the law, there is no law and no justice.

bridle said...

Sark - If you read what he said, you would realize that he was a liberal atheist pinko socialist.

Sarkazein said...

Bridal-

He was big into government not taking ones property to give to others. How could he be one of you? He was for small government, strong property rights, and mentioned G_d often in his writings. How is that like you?

Sarkazein said...

Bridal-

Think about this statement. Are prisoners, pirates, enemy soldiers part of society? NO, that is why they are taken OUT of society and imprisoned or worse.

"Sark - Paine makes it very clear that "the rights of men in society..."-Bridal

bridle said...

Sark - Everyone has the right to justice before being deprived of life, or liberty. Would you really give the president or a general or any single human being the power to declare that so and so is a pirate, a terrorist, or a criminal and deserving of punishment or torture? Remember, you may like this year's president and think he can make that decision, but next year the president with that power may be a muslim black scary man. According to Guy, I am a terrorist and a traitor and I should be tortured to make sure I am not plotting to bomb Walmart, or something. If you torture me, I will confess, and then you can say, well look,Walmart didn't get blown up so torture works.
Habeus corpus, and the right to a fair trial have been proven over the centuries to be the only way to prevent tyrants from imposing tyranny.
And of course the constitution specifically prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

bridle said...

Sark - Read Agrarian Justice. It is all about establishing a socialist welfare state by taxing the rich.

Sarkazein said...

Bridal-

So I guess we are through discussing Paine's belief that pirates and the British enemy are an equal part of society, and have moved on to something else?

No, everyone does not have the right to justice (your version) before being deprived of life or liberty.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

When you get right down to it, aren't you really saying, "No matter how many lives are at stake and no matter what the circumstances, enemy combatants must never be made to think they are drowning"?

Sarkazein said...

H.D.- Plainly put.

Liberal POV said...

HD


"No matter how many lives are at stake and no matter what the circumstances, enemy combatants must never be made to think they are drowning"?"

That's right because you let the genie out of the bottle anytime you start down that road.

Once the genie gets loose the world goes to shit. All rules and humanity are gone.

That why those that do autherize human rights abuse should stand trail for those decisions to give any future political leaders pause before taking the road of human rights abuse.

guy faulkes said...

POV, yawn, there were no human rights abuses. There was only justifiable interrogation. Maybe someday you learn a new song.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"POV, yawn, there were no human rights abuses. There was only justifiable interrogation. Maybe someday you learn a new song."

What is it when the interrogated is innocent or the interrogation becomes a stress release?


Who gets to decide who gets interrogated ( tortured ) and how harsh PFC, SP 4, Offices, contractors?

guy faulkes said...

POV, you have not been able to list even one instance in which your accusations ever happened. Yawn, ho hummmm.....

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Did you watch the frontline video?

guy faulkes said...

It contains no proof about Cheney or Rumesfeld. Yawn.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

So you didn't watch all of it if any?

guy faulkes said...

It contained no proof.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Sorry you didn't watch it, stay misinformed.

guy faulkes said...

Sorry you do not understand what constitutes proof.

Sarkazein said...

Or as Chief Democrat Apologist Lanny Davis says "pewf ".