Bush vs. History

The Iraqis are having a hard time pulling together a constitution quickly enough to meet President Bush's public-relations timeline.

As I am not an Iraqi, I have no interest in meddling in the affairs of that troubled land. Of course, I would prefer that the Iraqis establish a system of self-governance that, like ours in the United States, seeks to erect a wall of separation between church and state, preserve the rights of small states and political minorities, protect against military and police abuses, and guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of the press and all the other basics of a functioning democracy.

If I was really writing a wish list, I might also recommend that the Iraqis do a better job than we do of limiting the power of corporate monopolies, keep special-interest money out of their politics, treating healthcare and education as basic rights and establishing reliable electoral systems.

But as an American, I should not be worrying about perfecting the Iraqi constitution before I go about the work of getting things right here at home.

This seems like basic logic to me.

But that logic escapes our President.

It is true that George W. Bush was not born and raised in my home region of the Upper Midwest, where the legacy of Wisconsin Progressive, Minnesota Farmer-Labor and North Dakota Non-Partisan League activism has imparted a rich faith in the perfectability of the American experiment and a keen awareness of the folly of telling the peoples of other lands how to organize their governments. As such, the President has little familiarity with what I happen to think is the healthiest of American political traditions.

But it would be reassuring if the President at least had a passing acquaintance with American history.

As efforts to reach agreement on an Iraqi constitution have stumbled again and again, Bush has sought to comfort in a bizarre analogy.

"We had a little trouble with our own conventions writing a constitution," the President told reporters in Idaho the other day, continuing a pattern of comparing the US and Iraqi experiences of writing a constitution that began several months ago when Bush explained, "[We] must remember the history of our own country. The American Revolution was followed by years of chaos.... Our first effort at a governing charter, the Articles of Confederation, failed miserably--it took several years before we finally adopted our Constitution and inaugurated our first President.... No nation in history has made the transition from tyranny to a free society without setbacks and false starts. What separates those nations that succeed from those that falter is their progress in establishing free institutions. So to help young democracies succeed, we must help them build free institutions to fill the vacuum created by change."

To hear members of the Bush Administration and their amen corner in the media tell it, suicide bombs must have been going off like clockwork in Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Charleston back in the 1780s. But, of course, that was never the case.

While there were rowdy demonstrations and loud dissents during the years following the end of the British occupation of the Empire's former colonies along the Eastern Seaboard of North America, the period was characterized by relative calm as factions within the new nation debated the extent to which states should cooperate with one another.

Try as Bush and his followers may, they will find no historical record of Ayatollah Alexander Hamilton's militia hunting down followers of radical secularist Thomas Jefferson, nor of rival Christian gangs blowing up one another's houses of worship. Nor will they find a record of renegade Green Mountain Boys gunning down foreign troops who were supposedly present to "help young democracies succeed."

In fact, there were no foreign troops prodding the process along. The French, who played a critical role in helping the American revolutionaries throw off British colonial oppression, exited quickly. The Marquis de Lafayette, as good a friend as the American rebels had, did not return to the new republic until 1824.

To be sure, Lafayette had ideas about how the Continentals ought to organize the American experiment. But he was smart enough to recognize that constitutions are organic documents that cannot be written under timelines imposed by foreign powers, just as he recognized that democracies cannot form or flourish under occupation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols is the author of Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire (Nation Books). Howard Zinn says, "At exactly the time when we need it most, John Nichols gives us a special gift--a collection of writings, speeches, poems and songs from thoughout American history--that reminds us that our revulsion to war and empire has a long and noble tradition in this country." Frances Moore Lappe calls Against the Beast, "Brilliant! A perfect book for an empire in denial." Against the Beast can be found at independent bookstores nationwide and can be obtained online by tapping the above reference or at www.amazon.com.

Comments (338)

1. i agree. i have found the constantly imposed deadlines on the democratic process in iraq somewhat troubling. especially, as Mr. Nichols points out, when the process in iraq is being compared to what america went through in setting up its democracy.

   what use do these deadlines have for iraqis? how can the constant pressure of keeping the american government satisfied possibly help the process? and we are not talking about a drawn out process by any stretch of the imagination.

   if the president is so keen on deadlines, why is he so unwilling to even discuss a timetable for withdrawl? it seems unfair to the iraqi people and politicians especially to have deadlines imposed on them by their occupiers when those same occupiers are unwilling to set deadlines for themselves...

   Posted by wordupyo at 08/26/2005 @ 3:56pm

2. I wouldn't compare the creation of the U.S. Constitution to that of the Iraqi Constitution. Not even close.

   Fortunately for our Founding Fathers, the British colonies had a history of democracy. Unfortunately, Iraq doesn't have that in its favor. It's trying to do something entirely new, and we all should hope that it works.

   After the formation of the U.S., there was still bloodshed. Both Britain and France tried to flex its muscle to affect events here. After all, the War of 1812 could have been fought against either country. There were also conflicts between abolitionists and pro-slavery supporters leading up to the Civil War (which killed 2% of the U.S. population). After which, dissafected Southerners founded the KKK, our very own terrorist organization that liked to hide behind masks and kill people they thought were inferior to them. Their activites would go unchecked for another century until the Federal Government intervened.

   Somehow I don't think Iraq's problems will end with a new Constitution.

   Posted by Zeddmen at 08/26/2005 @ 4:16pm

3. The title of the article..."Bush vs. History" has a meaning that I don't think is being touched on here. Yes, Bush seems to be conjuring up the spirits of our history from the 1700s. But I think Bush is really up against the future...as in, what history will think of his experiement 50, 100 or 150 years into the future. I'm sure he had hoped to have completed his little experiment by now and hoped that all the other Mid-East countries would have been looking on Iraq with jealous eyes, thinking maybe "democracy" would work better for them too.

   Yet, I fear history will not look to favorably upon this war. Children will probably be forced to write papers in future history classes about the once "great" administration that lied its way into an unneccessary war and cost thousands of lives and dollars. The bonus essay on their weekly test might be: "Explain 3 different social, economic or political issues that could have been better served with all the money President Bush spent on the Iraq War." That test will might also have a question like: "Which president was impeached for lying about personal sexual matters and which president was not impeached for lying about national security?"

   Ahhh, I loved history. I guess we are just giving future students something to talk about.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 08/26/2005 @ 4:42pm

4. Frank,

   i definitely agree that "it will look too much like defeat", if he starts talking about withdrawl before he can officially declare victory in iraq, even though i don't even know what victory in iraq would be...

   i was trying to touch on the continued hypocrisy that spews forth during the president's speeches regarding iraq. one second he's talking about the upcoming dates of elections, constitutions, more elections...nothing is happening under the control of the iraqi people.

   but when it comes to what america is doing there, he changes gears and hides behind a double standard that seems to read: we're going to tell you what to do and when to do it, but you don't deserve the same courtesy from us.

   and for those who say that setting a timetable for withdrawl would be dangerous, how about marking on the calendar dates that america has decided on for iraq to become a democratic nation. is that not supposed to induce violence in those who are angry with america for occupying and enforcing their will on iraq?

   Posted by wordupyo at 08/26/2005 @ 5:22pm

5. Zeddmen has the history correct, and shows there is really no comparison between our experience in the 1780s and now in Iraq. An additional point also is relevant -- unlike Iraq, where a civil war is effectively nullifying the entire constitutional drafting process, here the debate over the constitution was generally in writing. Any one reading the Federalist Papers or other collections of articles by leading Americans of the era can immediately see the difference. Moreover, the desire for a constitution here was entirely organic. Certainly, the French had nothing to do with it -- they were a monarchy on the verge of a bloody revolution. Our process was, from beginning to end, run by Americans. Iraq, on the other hand, is far different. The reason for the constitution they are drafting is not because they voluntarily rebelled against Saddam Hussein, but they were invaded and the U.S. told them to do this.

   Posted by trabaris at 08/26/2005 @ 5:23pm

6. You know in reading these blogs, I get a disturbing sense of a VERY different way of thinking. But I respectfully dissent!

   WHY?!?!

   After September 11, 2001, President Bush gave the nation a new vision. He was not satisfied with lobbing a few cruise missiles now and then on our adversaries, or turning our problems over to the ineffective UN. The President wanted not only to punish the terrorists who took over 3000 civilian lives, but to defeat them utterly, and change the culture which spawned them. Forced to live in tyranny all their lives, it's no wonder the Middle East has become a breeding ground for the harbingers of death and destruction.

   For such a bold dream, there comes a price. As John Kennedy once said "We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Our President has echoed this bold statement to the emerging democracies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. This is a noble vision which many, especially Soldiers, myself included, think worth dying for.

   For a new and better world where our children can live free from the scourge of terrorism, and poor nations of the earth enjoy the blessings of Liberty, it is a small price to pay. That's why I support our troops, our President, and the ongoing War on Terror, wherever it's fought.

   These words from the Iraqi PreAmble reinforce that optimisim.

   We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined -- men and women, old and young -- to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism.

   Posted by CPT at 08/26/2005 @ 6:15pm

7. One important difference (there are many) between the formation of the U.S. Constitution and the proposed constitution draft in Iraq is the issue of secularism. The dominant thinkers among the framers of the U.S. Constitution were not members of any monotheistic religion. Madison, Jefferson (writing to Madison as ambassador to France), Franklin, Washington, and many others of the framers were not Christians. They were deists, who view nature as the symbol of God. In fact, the word "god" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. It is truly a secular document. In contrast, the proposed Iraq constitution will stipulate that ,in the Shiite southern autonomous region, all laws must not violate Islamic law. This effectively makes the Shiite region a theocracy, similar in structure to Iran. The U.S. Constitution shares nothing with the proposed Iraq document. They shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath.

   Posted by philbq at 08/26/2005 @ 6:24pm

8. CPT: what planet are you living on. Do you know ANYTHING about the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq? Anything at all about 700-year-old tribal factions, about the likelihood of getting a bunch of Iraq's Arab neighbors to rally around the project in their midst? Suggest you do some reading.

   TRABARIS: you will likely enjoy reading the review, now posted on The Nation site, of the three books about American history currently out, if not the books themselves. Even the review tantalizes with some really fresh perspective on our threadbare Revolutionary War myths taught year in and year out to the schoolchildren....

   Posted by mewsician at 08/26/2005 @ 6:26pm

9. CPT: you might want to start your reading project with Scott Ritter's piece in the current (Friday) AlterNet (that's Alternet.org).

   Posted by mewsician at 08/26/2005 @ 6:27pm

10. I stand by my statement the other day, that the more we (the U.S.) play a part in the structure of the Iraqi Constitution, the more we influence the way it is written and what it says, the more we look like occupiers that are only interested in propping up a "U.S. friendly" oil trading partner (Not that I necessarily think that's a bad thing).

    I'm just saying, if it's really all about "Iraqi freedom" we should STAY out of the politics involved in the construction of their constitution.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 6:30pm

11. TRABARIS. I couldn't agree more. America's population was entirely made of people of European extraction, primarily British. Similarly, our role in setting up governments in Germany and Japan after WWII were a cake walk compared to what the Iraqi's are up against because the population of Germany was made up of principally Germans (the eastern portions of the country with a significant Polish population was under control of the Russians) and Japan was almost exclusively Japanese.

    When W made his idiotic comparison between establishing democracies in those two countries and Iraq before his war, he ignored the fact that Iraq was made up of Kurds, Sunni's and Shiite's. Not only did these different factions have a history of not getting along with each other, but there were multiple divisions of each of these factions that had fought each other. Further, the distribution of oil reserves only in the Kurdish and Shia areas creates another problematic issue.

    A better model for the likelihood of setting up a new government, in a country with a diverse ethnic population after the departure of a powerful, repressive government like Saddam's, would be Yugoslavia. Like Yugoslavia, at the moment nation building in Iraq seems likely to degenerate into civil war. Unlike Yugoslavia, given the influence of Iran and the history of previous governments in Iraq, the chances for the creation of any government that remotely resembles a democracy is unlikely.

    This of course will do wonders for our national security and enhance stability in the Middle East and result in the formation of democracies throughout the area – right.

    Posted by Signguy at 08/26/2005 @ 6:56pm

12. OKSPORTSGUY(you're my favorite Republican): The obvious bullwhip manipulation by the U.S. ambassador during the ongoing negotiations for a constitution have given the document the stench of the occupier. The average Iraqi on the street cannot avoid the conclusion that the new constitution is a U.S. creation, thus depriving it of any legitimacy. The Bush mob is so desperate for ANY constitution so they can claim success. Then I suspect they will remove some troops before the next congressional elections, while leaving a permanent force to control the oil fields forever.

    Posted by philbq at 08/26/2005 @ 6:56pm

13. TODD: I AGREED WITH YOU!

    Posted by philbq at 08/26/2005 @ 6:57pm

14. Phil,

    "The Bush mob is so desperate for ANY constitution so they can claim success."

    Yes, they are rushing it now, only to meet contrived timelines. However one must remember that the timelines were put in place to meet public demand.

    Were I Bush, I would have stuck to answering the questions about time frames with "We will stay until the job is completed, however here is our plan of action, and exit strategy to complete the job including the completion of the Constitution."

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 7:05pm

15. here's a little tidbit about Lafayette from Schlesinger's "The Age Of Jackson", a fine read which is quite apropos to our time. when Lafayette returned on a triumphal tour of america, he made some speeches about freedom and democracy, which got the Whigs, read conservatives, all in an uproar, they did not want to hear it, what with the calls for universal suffrage and all.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/26/2005 @ 7:10pm

16. Phil,

    Ya, I have that effect on most progressives, it just takes some time, pretty soon you'll be singing praise songs, driving a suburban, and making fun of all those pesky tree huggers.

    Praise the Lord, I've converted another one!

    = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 7:24pm

17. "Todd, Sounds the other way around to me!"

    The only thing I said was that the U.S. should keep our nose out of the Iraqi's constitution.

    I also said I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if we are trying to prop Iraq up as a U.S friendly oil partner.

    I wouldn't necessarily think that means I was converted to "progresivism" (is that a word?)

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 7:47pm

18. The bottom line is that the nation of Iraq was a sovereign country. Hussein was their problem, and they were denied the opportunity to resolve it on their own steam. Instead, the Great White Father did one of his usual trips, and the result, naturally, is perpetual chaos. And now, even some who oppose the war would have us believe that all would go to crap if we weren't there. News, pals. It has all gone to crap. There is a civil war. And much of it is because we were there. As for the constitutional process, it will hit the rocks, because such a process cannot be imposed from above, or from the outside.

    What irritates me is that many of the very people who ought to know better, who run at the mouth if a socialist government makes errors that come of its own volition, e.g., of a nation's own experience, have the audacity to hold forth on conditions that would be non-existent if the parties that bombed their way into power at our behest had never done so to begin with. Hard core imperialism or soft core imperialism are both completely backwards. The truth of the matter is that if the United States had never begun this "experiment", Iraq would be far less likely to be visited by protracted civil war. U.S. destruction of civilian infrastructure throughout the country has seeded the ground for mayhem, whether we stay or go. The U.S. government's actions have been categorically criminal, Bush or whomever has sat in the saddle these last forty odd years, and if any sort of secular government emerges at all from this nonsense it will be in spite of our constant interference in the history of the region for half a century now.---Jayarjunyah

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 08/26/2005 @ 8:00pm

19. JAYARJUNYAH, Nice post.

    OKSG and PHILBQ, Since the parts of the Iraqi constitution that have been completed to date enshrine Islam as the official religio of Iraq, and also state that no law can be made that is contrary to Islam, and furthermore since women do not have equal rights with men under Islam, let me ask you this: What is the noble cause, then? American troops are fighting and being killed or wounded in order to codify into law discrimination against women!

    And especially OKSG, are you happy that your tax dollars are being used and our troops are being used to make Islam the law of the land in Iraq? Don't you think Islam is specifically not "the way, the truth and the life"???

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 8:07pm

20. I miss having ALUDRA around. He/she left because all of you put him/her on your ignore list. This place is a lot more boring without ALUDRA and all the futile and laughable attempts by other bloggers to engage in debate with ALUDRA. OKSG is a poor substitute for ALUDRA (but that is a compliment, Todd, so don't feel bad!)

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 8:11pm

21. Is this all Nichols has to complain about? I mean, is he a moron or does he only play one in the funny papers? Obvious all Bush meant was that the US wasn't built in a day either and we shouldn't read too much into missed deadlines. I seriously doubt he meant to take the analogy quite as far a far as Nichols pathetically lusts for. Why that would be as crazy as comparing Iraq and Vietnam. His whole complaint here is pure invention. Does he deny it took us a long time? Does he deny there weren't arguments aplenty? Does he forget the issue of slavery nearly prevented the Constitution from ever existing? It's John who doesn't know squat about history or how to understand analogies.

    Posted by jeck at 08/26/2005 @ 8:11pm

22. Jeck, it's not polite to call other people morons. also the issue of slavery had not come to the front during the writing of the constitution, can you cite any proof for your statement?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/26/2005 @ 8:30pm

23. There were a lot of people talking fervently about the evils of China before the dozen or so suicidal Saudis with boxcutters crashed those planes into WTC and the Pentagon. Perhaps the war in Iraq has helped to prevent, or delay, a much bigger war between the US and China. THere are an awful lot of men in the US that want to "kick some ass" somewhere overseas. I do not see how that is going to end. What is the substitute for that need? Even if we had extracted ourselves quickly from Iraq, how long would people be satisfied with only that?

    Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/26/2005 @ 8:44pm

24. Perhaps the Vietnam war helped to prevent a bigger war between the United States, Soviet Union, and China. It gave them a location to fight, practice their armies and weapons, feel out their power, and yet keep it away from their own civilian populations. After all, it was only Vietnam. Might have been that most people would have even had trouble locating Vietnam on a map prior to the 1960s.

    Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/26/2005 @ 8:50pm

25. And with the young girls in the Saigon bars, and in nearby Thailand, the breaks between the fighting stints were often described as pretty interesting and exotic.

    Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/26/2005 @ 8:53pm

26. hmmmm, sounds good.....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 8:57pm

27. Todd I agree that we have no business trying to manipulate the Iraqi constitution and if we were trying to prop up a U.S. friendly oil partner that would be a good thing but.

    Since the start of this conflict we have been told that we were helping the Iraqi people yet we still haven't investigated the fraud and embezzlement of Iraqi funds by the Coalition Authority which was /is run by our oil companies and Halaburton. There is a conflict with this administrations desire to have an Iraqi constitution when the question of the oil interests contracts are taken into consideration it seems that the contracts made by our oil concerns may be flushed if there isn't a stable democracy in place so that our oil interests can have a leg to stand on when they take the contracts to the world court to be upheld. So having watched this administration lie, steal and cheat to protect their buddies I have to question their motives.

    For a follow up on our oil interests check http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/01surface.htm

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/26/2005 @ 9:00pm

28. Maybe the Iraq war helps to postpose the eventual arrival of change, war, and chaos, in Saudi Arabia. That seems to be frightening many people throughout the world. And probably with very good reason. But the "royal family" can't maintain their hold on power, and oil wealth, for the rest of the 21st century. The Iraq war provides a powerful military and political distraction, maybe many years of delay before the inevitable collapse and chaos in Saudi Arabia.

    Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/26/2005 @ 9:04pm

29. Frank,

    "Todd, Wouldn't it be a great thing if we as a nation could eliminate our need for foreign oil completely by developing a n alternate source? Then we could flip all the Arabs the bird."

    From a die-hard conservative, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with you on this one.

    And I swear on my fathers grave, I will be the first in line to purchase the first alternate fuel source SUV that still has 300 + horse power to pull my boat, room for 6 (me, wife and 4 kiddo's) and our gear for camping.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 9:11pm

30. Physics,

    "And especially OKSG, are you happy that your tax dollars are being used and our troops are being used to make Islam the law of the land in Iraq? Don't you think Islam is specifically not "the way, the truth and the life"???"

    Yes, I do not believe Islam is "the way, the truth and the life" but Iraq isn't my country.

    In the same way that although I'm glad our state defined marriage as one man and one woman, I wouldn't expect your state to redefine marriage just because ours did. It's up to your state to decide that issue. In the same vein it's up to Iraq if they want to institute Islam into their constitution.

    Again, it's NOT our country, and the MORE we poke, prod and coerce them into making their constitution meet OUR expectations, the more the world (including Iraqi's) will view us as the pimp and Iraq as our Bitch, excuse the French (not the French people, just the language).

    I don't particularly care either way, I'm just saying, it seems very hypocritical to me when progressives criticize conservatives because your so afraid of "us" forcing others to adapt to our personal religious beliefs when it comes to marriage being defined and you don't think we should, however you are ALL FOR sticking your hands in the Iraqi constitution and telling them what to do with it.

    It's very hypocritical.

    Hope that wasn't too politically incorrect for anyone.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 9:22pm

31. "OKSG is a poor substitute for ALUDRA (but that is a compliment, Todd, so don't feel bad!)"

    Ya, I can count to 10 on my own.... as long as I don't have my socks and shoes on..

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 9:24pm

32. "Todd, Just outta curiosity, how much does it cost you to fill that suv up with gas? Seriously."

    $73.00 from totally empty currently.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 9:29pm

33. Anx

    Possible but whose to say that with the advent of the Internet and instant global communication there will be a movement towards a global community, that this will happen is inevitable.

    The power and control of not just the Islamic & Christian religions and those monarchies will eventually melt into an global awareness for individuals rights who will in time question their beliefs.

    This must concern not only the Saudi royal family but also the leaders of the religions who misuse the beliefs of their followers to insight violence in the name of their god. If only we could speed up the process.

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/26/2005 @ 9:34pm

34. OKSG, I can count to 21 when I'm naked, but it takes me a looong time to get there from 20....

    and when you say however you are ALL FOR sticking your hands in the Iraqi constitution and telling them what to do with it.

    It's very hypocritical. I must correct you and say, "No, I was against the war all along. I was for staying out of Iraq all along.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 9:39pm

35. FG, I know lots of conservatives with a sense of humor. let's not go there.....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 9:41pm

36. " So what the hell are we doing there again? Oh yeah to install a friendly 'democratic' oil trader."

    From my perspective, that is starting to look more and more like a reason for the war. Of course the Bush administration would never admit it.

    "We will rid this world of evil... and set up a friendly U.S. oil trading partner in the process!!

    Now lets go get them terrorists!!"

    I just don't see that happening.

    Let me be very clear where I personally stand now that I said that.

    I don't condone lying, and if Bush lied to get the American public to support the war, when one of the "real" justifications for the war was the possibility of a friendlier Iraq government who would be a good trade partner for oil, then SHAME on Bush.

    At the same time, I don't particularly have a problem with the plan. If that was part of the plan, I just would have wanted honesty. I still would have supported the war, as I think we are doing other good things there, i.e. killing terrorists, rebuilding run down schools, freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam's evil control, etc.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 9:42pm

37. "Todd, 73 DOLLARS!!! Man you must be from that 'other' class."

    Ya, I normally wouldn't associate with you little people. But with the anonymity of the Internet, none of my conservative friends will ever know...

    (joking of course)

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 9:44pm

38. Freiheit, could you explain to me please why you automatically brand anyone who disagrees with you and your ilk as a "CRAZY LIB" and an "IDIOT"? Ad hominem attacks, from my experience, simply belie the paucity of the intellectual depth of your position (or, at very least, the shallowness of your own understanding of your position), just as resorting to cursing typically betrays a rather truncated vocabulary. Perhaps, Freiheit, you should consider this... if you can't respond with some modicum of respect to others on here, regardless of whether you agree with them, kindly find another board to annoy.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 9:47pm

39. FRANK/MEWSCIAN

    Thank you for your very astute anaylsis of my personal views, I am well educated on the subject though, having lived it.

    But I see your tolerance for varying points of view, only goes so far.

    FRANK I didnt answer all your questions because quite frankly they were silly and I didnt want to give those questions any creedence. My agenda is to put people in the Army for right now, and to tell the Army story. NOT to give into the Howard Zinn/Noam Choamsky viewpoints of the NEW LEFT.

    I would recommend that you stop taking your lead from Oliver Stone conspiracy theroies. STOP LIVING in the HEADLINE of the DAY!! Please, there is enough disinformation as is.

    FRANK and one more thing, I am quite aware of your agenda "turning our swords into plowshares" sorry, the USA cannot bury its head in the sand, all the time.

    MEWSCIAN,

    I suggest you also take time to actually READ the Iraqi draft of the consitution. Stop living in the: "dogs and cats living together, Mass Hysteria!!" world Bill Murray(Ghostbusters)

    Posted by CPT at 08/26/2005 @ 9:49pm

40. "

    It's very hypocritical. I must correct you and say, "No, I was against the war all along. I was for staying out of Iraq all along. "

    That's funny, your wife told me you could only count to 20.00007

    Wow ok, that one was bad I admit, please forgive me...

    regarding your point.

    Acknowledged, and I know you didn't support the war.

    But now that we are there, how do you justify your position that it's ok to tell Iraqi's how to construct their constitution, but you don't think Christians should have the right to band together and amend state constitutions?

    Still seems hypocritical.

    Not trying to slam you, or make you angry, just engaging in good debate.

    Love you bro,

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 9:51pm

41. The president is briefed on a daily basis. Much of the material is classified. That means it should not be public. So I am sure the president would not consider it a lie if he is taking action that he views is in the national interest, but feels key information is secret.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 9:59pm

42. What? You do not think they have a lot of secret information that is not for the public to view? Then why does the CIA and DOD have classified reports? Would you broadcast that on the TV?

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:05pm

43. Iraq is of great strategic importance. And our entire economy depends on oil. But the president can't come out and talk openly about oil. But we all need the oil and gas!

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:08pm

44. Not to mention that we are a Christian nation. Those people are our natural enemies. Why do you side with them?

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:09pm

45. While I agree that our economy depends on oil, and numerous oil byproducts (gasoline, fertilizer, plastics, etc.), using that fact as sufficient reason for us to affect a sovereign nation's domestic policies (or in the case or Iraq, create the domestic policy for them) is something akin to the bully on the playground coming up to the rich, but wimpy kid and shaking him down for lunch money, because the bully feels he needs more food to support his bulk. Ludicrous.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 10:13pm

46. But we are the leader of the free world. Our economy is essential for other countries. It is in all countries interest for the United States to have access to oil at a reasonable price. And many of those people want to come and live in our country.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:15pm

47. WIseowl... we are NOT a Christian nation... our nation is based on a secular humanist document, the Constitution, which is essentially Thomas Paine's Common Sense boiled down to more manageable length, with a bit of Rousseau and various other French Enlightenment (read: non-Christian, reason-based) thinkers thrown in for flavor. While the amorphous concept of "God" is mentioned in the Constitution, if would be in fact erroneous and misguided to necessarily equate that conception of God to the Christian one. Read your history books before posting, please.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 10:19pm

48. Walk through any city or town in the country and you see Christian churches. I am not trying to criticize other religions. I am just saying that most Americans are Christians and we have a democracy that means that WE vote for the president that represents our views. Christians are hated by many Muslims. Even if you are a Christian you must still see the pragmatic side of this. And many Muslims want to come here for our freedoms, including religious freedom.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:25pm

49. As for our being the leader of the free world... the world got along fine before we were the chief bully on the block. It will get along just fine after we are long gone. And no, it isn't in the world's best interest for the US to have access to cheap oil. What IS in the best interest of the world: the US should stop interfering in the domestic politics of sovereign nations, according to the UN charter, to which we are a signatory; the hoggish oil companies should be compelled to develop a CHEAP and REPLICATABLE energy source that doesn't adversely change the ecology of the planet, seeing as they have been the primary brakes on this type of development for the better part of the past century; instead of going it alone in the theater of international politics, playing fast and loose with the rules, and thumbing our noses at anyone who disagrees, we should get down to ACTUALLY leading the world into a more sustainable future, instead of mortgaging our progeny for the luxury of driving vehicles the size of tanks or having cheaply made sweatshop goods.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 10:27pm

50. To Jorcheim:

    Your 10:31pm reply to WiseOwl is well said.

    WiseOwl is essentially embracing imperialism, a system that is no more morally defensible than slavery. We are better than they, so we have a natural right to rule over them and expropriate for ourselves what is theirs. In slavery, an individual is subjugated and his labor is expropriated; in imperialism, a nation's is subjugated and its natural resources are expropriated.

    WiseOwl says:

    Not to mention that we are a Christian nation. Those people are our natural enemies. Why do you side with them?

    We are a Christian nation? Those people (presumably he means Muslims) are our natural enemies? Is he saying we're better than they are because we're Christian and they're Muslims? Therefore, we have a right to expropriate their oil?

    Last time I checked, church and state were separate in America; we are no more a Christian nation than a Parsee nation. I do not regard Muslims or anyone else as my natural enemy.

    My mother, who was raised a Methodist, taught me that if I need something from somebody else, I should pay the price he's asking for it.

    As a democrat, I have no desire to be an emperor. As an American citizen, I have no desire to take from the Iraqi people what is theirs.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/26/2005 @ 10:29pm

51. Regardless of what the majority of our population is, Wiseowl, allow me to illustrate the error in your argument. By saying that since most people in the US are Christian, we are a Christian nation and should act according to those "interests" is like saying that since most people in the US are white, everyone should act like whites. The logic doesn't hold. Go back to square one, Wiseowl, and rethink your position.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 10:29pm

52. I feel very bad for Cindy Sheehan. But she would not be able to fly back to California to see her Mom without the fuel for the plane. And the protesters need their vehicles to get to the places they gather. Oil is as important as water. And where is the remaining oil. I am not a bully if I take some fragile object from a child and make it useful to everyone. That is what our technology and economy are all about. But I am not trying to offend. This a very pragmatic view.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:30pm

53. Jack Rabbit... excelsior... great point. I can't believe you said the "I" word (Imperialism). Thank you!

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 10:32pm

54. A bully tries to deliberately hurt others for no reason. A bully is insecure. But Iran, Iraq, North Korea, these are countries that do not function. If the United States is allowed to HELP develop the resources everyone can gain. I am not saying and steal from others. Yes, I do support sustainability. But we need more time for new developments and technology. We NEED oil to function until we get to that point. How would you like to run out of home heating oil in the winter?

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:35pm

55. Hold the phone... Wiseowl, are you trying to say that people in other countries, because they choose to use the mineral wealth within the boundaries of their SOVEREIGN NATION in a manner that is in contradiction to our needs and desires, they are, by definition, children? Explain yourself.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 10:36pm

56. JORCHEIM, FREIHEIT was just making a joke about another blogger. It isn't serious.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 10:36pm

57. Todd, I don't advocate telling the Iraqis what to put into their constitution. I was pointing out a sad irony for those that supported the war, that now our soldiers are dying for discrimination.

    My position is, even if the very last copy of the Iraqi constitution were used to wipe someone's...uh, nose, and they had to start from scratch, I would still say "pull US troops out NOW!!!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 10:40pm

58. Wiseowl, we have proven to be the most craven, cowardly, insecure power on the planet. The illegal invasion of Iraq in direct contravention of the Nuremburg laws, the unconstitutional USAPATRIOT acts, our numerous instances of meddling in the affairs of essentially EVERY country on the planet... we are a disgrace to the democratic ideals we hold so dear. And just so you know, exploitation, war, and torture are not Christian values. But apparently they are American values...

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 10:41pm

59. Child is not a slanderous word. It simply means immature and undeveloped. Children have great potential but they need mentors with experience. Cleary, those countries are like children. They have potential but they are a MESS! And we can help them make progress. I am not trying to say we do not act in our own self interest. But we can help them make progress faster. You agree that we are much more advanced than N.Korea, Iraq, and Iran?

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:41pm

60. ILOVEPHYSICS... I am in total agreement on that point. our military's mandate is for defense only, not nation-building (ostenibly) or conquest (actually)

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 10:43pm

61. I can imagine that the King of England thought the American colonies were like immature children.

    Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/26/2005 @ 10:47pm

62. To WiseOwl:

    If you are calling Iraqis immature and underdeveloped because they aren't westerners, then you slander them.

    Those countries are not children. Mesopotamia (Iraq) was a civilization 6000 years ago. They gave us libraries and codified laws. A thousands years ago, Baghdad was as splendid as Scheherazade made it out to be.

    Today, we are more advanced. That gives us no right to send in the Marines and then to drill for their oil without their leave.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/26/2005 @ 10:48pm

63. I do not see how helping other countries, with a mutual gain, is like a conquest.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:49pm

64. WISEOWL... apparently you and I have a very different understanding of what we do in relation to other nations. I cannot think of anything we have ever done as a nation that was selfless, or even remotely so. That includes WWII and the so-called greatest generation. SO in my humble opinion, anything this country does is by definition for the purpose of exploitation and personal enrichment on the part of large corporations who hold our "elected" officials in thrall. And to answer your question about N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran. On what set of measures would you like to answer that? Are they as rapaciously exploitative as we are? Do they use far more than their fair share of resources to maintain an artificially high standard of living for their populations? Do the make a habit of invading countries who have never so much as attacked them? Tell me, please, how you would like for me to measure their development.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 10:49pm

65. The time has come for everyone to get educated about oil. Here it goes.

    The only people that can benefit from cheap oil are living today. Future generations will suffer if we do not stop using so much fossil fuel.

    The more we use, the worse it will be for them. Why? Because global warming is REAL. Forget what Rush Limbaugh told you. Global warming is real. The tipping point is coming soon, if it is not already here, when mankind will be helpless to do anything to stop massive and unpredicatable climate change. The best scientific models, which are excellent, by the way, predict severe drought for MOST of the US.

    Change is occurring now. This is not debatable. It is established fact. Climate change has wiped out civilizations in the past, and it can happen again. We need our leaders, especially the neocons, to get their heads out of their butts and WAKE UP.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 10:49pm

66. ILOVEPHYSICS... finally someone who has actually read the recent studies on climate change as opposed to the press releases by the Bush Administration or the Heritage Foundation. Cheers.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 10:52pm

67. I can't speak well to the climate change issue. However, for the measure of development I would point to availability of electricity, clean water, fuel supply to support a growing economy, and a place where people are not starving.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:55pm

68. Yeah, JORCHEIM, and although it is a bit "off-topic" I thought I should mention it due to WISEOWL's comments about a "pragmatic view" towards oil. Indeed he is being very "pragmatic" in the immediate moment, but extremely short-sighted.

    I'll take this moment to plug the Long Now Foundation (http://longnow.org/about/about.htm) and say that the survival of our species may depend on more people adapting to their POV.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 10:59pm

69. I never said take the oil away from the Iraqi people. I mean work side by side with them where we can help them significantly increase the production of oil. This means a better economy and opportunity for them, and it means plentiful and cheaper oil for us. Do you realize how poorly Iraq is utilizing its oil resources?

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 10:59pm

70. POV?

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:00pm

71. FRANKGRITS:

    YOU CRAZY LIBS ARE IDIOTS! I AM THRILLED NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY POWER WHATSOEVER WITH YOUR PATHETIC BULLS**T!!!

    In honor of Aludra, whom I also miss. :-)

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/26/2005 @ 9:19pm

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:01pm

72. POV = point of view

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:01pm

73. FRANKGRITS tyvm for the compliment...

    WISEOWL... perhaps these places of which you speak would have affordable energy, potable water, sufficient food production, and proper infrastructure had the western powers, from the period of colonization to the present day,not done everything within their formidable powers to maldevelop those same places to which you refer as underdeveloped. We have simply assumed the mantle passed down by the now-defunct European empires and put our own stamp of originality on it. We remain complicit in the outright theivery and destruction of the third world.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:02pm

74. WISEOWL, I can recommend a 3-part series in New Yorker magazine that ran in April-May, if you'd like to do some research on the topic without wading through scientific journals. It may give you pause...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:04pm

75. JORCHEIM, There is a great website if you are looking for some research to back up your assertions. I'd start with

    http://globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption/Sugar.asp

    Anup Shah also talks about beef and bananas and how they fit into the neocolonial model.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:06pm

76. I agree that many mistakes have been made. But George Bush is trying to help these countries. We are talking about partnership, to help the economies, improve the health care, and promote democracy. Whatever you may think about past errors of our country you must agree that we are now trying to the correct actions.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:06pm

77. What is the 3-part series about?

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:09pm

78. ILOVEPHYSICS... that was a very good piece. I forget who wrote it, but there is also a very good book on the same subject, written by Robert Kennedy Jr, called Crimes Against Nature, that is also germane to the discussion on the environment.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:09pm

79. Sorry, I do not agree. The war was waged in order to "disarm" Saddam Hussein of his nonexistant WMD. So the war itself was a mistake, because the pretense was incorrect.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:09pm

80. WISEOWL, I refer to a 3-part piece on the topic of global warming.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:10pm

81. How about we wipe out enormous, octopus-like corporations who weave their way through the nations of the world both taking what they please, and not paying their fair share of taxes...

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:10pm

82. Our partnership with Iraq will provide great progress against poverty in that country. If the partnership is allowed to work.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:10pm

83. JORCHEIM, It was written by Elizabeth Kolbert. I look forward to reading the Kennedy book

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:13pm

84. WISEOWL... I believe you have officially drunk the Koolaid. Iraq will be a playground for Bechtel, Halliburton, et al, not another womb of nascient democracy and well-being.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:13pm

85. OK, well I can agree that the WMD issue is rather puzzling. It seemed to be a sure thing at that time. That seems to show something is wrong with the CIA. But we have adapted to the situation. The partnership in democracy and economic development is a worthy cause even if not the original objective.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:14pm

86. ILOVEPHYSICS tyvm for the info. Much appreciated.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:14pm

87. WISEOWL, how will the US reduce poverty in Iraq?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:15pm

88. Maybe Halliburton will make a lot of money. But they will also be able to hire a lot of Iraqi people who need jobs. I don't see how anyone can against that idea?

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:16pm

89. WISEOWL, Speaking of something wrong at the CIA, did you see the special on CNN Sunday? It was titled "Dead Wrong" and basically made a case that the CIA massaged the intelligence to make it look like Iraq had WMD.

    However, outside of the CIA and the US administration many people realized it wasn't a "sure thing." I am one of them.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:18pm

90. I realize that George Bush is not especially articulate. But I think his intentions are good, and that is what is most important. Not just some slick talking politician. Sure, if he had Tony Blair's speaking skills we would be viewed a bit better. But I think he shows sincerity and belief.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:19pm

91. WISEOWL, Why not have Iraqi companies doing the work instead of American companies? Don't you find it improper, to say the least, that Haliburton was formerly run by Dick Cheney, and now that Cheney is VP, Haliburton is getting so many sweet contracts to rebuild?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:20pm

92. WISEOWL... when you expatriate the profits of a concern that were earned from the gleaning of material resources of a particular region and/or nation-state, you essentially are chopping off any economic development at the knees. Not to mention, the technical positions are all filled by either Americans or our people. Not what I would consider a recipe for long-term sustainable economic development. Please go learn economics.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:21pm

93. BTW, the road to hell is paved with "good intentions."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 11:21pm

94. ILOVEPHYSICS... you can't make an omelette without breaking a few heads... I mean eggs...

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:23pm

95. But certainly the president has to feel he can trust the advice of the CIA. Why was he given bad information? He got screwed on that but did not dwell on it. But at some point he had to adapt to the situation. And it can work IF the insurgents would stop blowing everything up.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:24pm

96. WISEOWL... he wasn't given bad info... he and his cabal had already decided to go to war prior to his taking office. Simple as that... am I the only one here who finds it too coincidental that not only is our current "war president" the son of the last guy that took us to war against Iraq, but also is himself a former oil company executive and whose administration is littered with similarly former oil executives?

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:26pm

97. wiseowl, you should really try to read some newspapers and take off those rosecolored glasses. yesterday there was no oil produced in Iraq, none, pipelines blown up, oil facilities attacked etc. Iraq has not yet during the occupation produced as much oil as before. we are not partners of the Iraqis, they did not ask us to invade and blow their infrastructure to smithereens. it is about oil oil oil and only oil, the freedom and democracy jazz is the cover story. also has anyone noticed that the 'insurgents are now waging soldier attacks in broad daylight in Bagdad, reminds one of the TET offensive, i know, I know the viet cong were defeated in that offensive but they changed the perception and thus the facts on the ground

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/26/2005 @ 11:28pm

98. WISEOWL:

    Regarding your puzzlement on WMD, some other bloggers can throw in some good references, but I suggest Seymour Hersh's "Chain of Command;" Chalmers Johnson's "Sorrows of Empire;" or even Bob Woodward's book (title slips my memory).

    Online check out Walter Pincus' article in the Washington Post - www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100474.html; OR http://www.theage.com.au/news/Iraq/Iraq-how-we-were-duped/2005/05/13/1115843375902.html?oneclick=true; OR http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html; OR just Google "Bush pre-war intelligence Iraq." You'll see that the fact we found no WMD was naything but a surprise.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/26/2005 @ 11:30pm

99. Well now I think we might agree on something. You agree that oil is important to the economies of ALL countries. And we agree that Bush and Cheney had experience in the oil industry. So is not that a good thing if the key strategic interest ALL is the places (countries) with lots of oil but too MESSED up to get the stuff out of the ground and into the gas tanks. The people in Iraq drive cars too.

    Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:31pm

100. HMAN2... you could also add to that list the following: Blood and Oil by Michael T. Klare Incoherent Empire by Michael Mann The Pre-Emptive Empire by Saul Landau The Battle for Saudi Arabia by As'ad Abukhalil What Does Al-Qaeda Want? by Robert Marlin Empire Of Capital by Ellen Meiksins Wood

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:32pm

101. or these: Out Of Gas by David Goodstein Behind The War on Terror by Nafeez Mossaddeq Ahmed The Decline of American Power by Immanuel Wallerstein The Forging of the American Empire by Sidney Lens The Invention of Capitalism by Michael Perelman

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:32pm

102. To WiseOwl:

     I don't know where you are getting your Kiplingesque view of the world. It isn't reality.

     Prior to 1991, Iraq was doing just fine economically. They had oil and they had the technology to pump it out of their ground. The biggest problem Iraq had was the brutal tyrant in charge; he had delusions of grandeur, financed by Uncle Sam.

     At least you have one thing right. The war is about oil. It sure wasn't about weapons or links to international terrorism. However, there is no mutual benefit to Iraq, other than we deposed the brutal tyrant with delusions of grandeur we used to keep propped up.

     We are doing nothing for the Iraqis they can't do for themselves. In fact, given that after two years of neoconservative-led reconstruction, Iraq still doesn't have reliable water or power or safe streets, I'd be willing to bet the Iraqis could do it better than Bush and his pals can.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/26/2005 @ 11:33pm

103. WISEOWL... you are grasping for straws and coming up with air... Iraq is too messed up because we made it that way both by attacking it twice, and by helping to install and support Hussein's regime... simple.

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:34pm

104. There you go with that Vietnam analogy. Are you proposing that we bring all our troops home, just let that MESSED up place get worse, tell all our allies it was just a mistake, and tell all the soldiers "sorry, change of plans". How does that make any sense at all?

     Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:34pm

105. How do you say we supported Saddam? We are the ones with guts to go after him. And now he sits in a jail!

     Posted by wiseowl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:36pm

106. we helped bring the Ba'athists to power, we supported Saddam's rise to power, we funded and supplied his development of chem and bio weapons for use against Iran... would you like for me to go on?

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:37pm

107. oh, and as an aside, it isn't called guts when you roll over a joke of a military with the most state of the art machines of death humanity has ever devised. That's called murder.

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/26/2005 @ 11:42pm

108. Jack Rabbit,

     "We are a Christian nation? Those people (presumably he means Muslims) are our natural enemies? Is he saying we're better than they are because we're Christian and they're Muslims? Therefore, we have a right to expropriate their oil?"

     Pretty far stretch, and deffinitely not politically or ethically correct, but ya...

     that's what he's saying.

     Wow, I'm a conservative and I am even a little offended at that one.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 11:49pm

109. JR

     I still don't understand how we funded the repairs to the Iraq infrastructure and yet then money is still in the bank and the Iraqi still have no infrastructure

     Posted by dycel8r at 08/27/2005 @ 12:01am

110. To Dycel8r:

     Are we supposed to understand that? If we did, somebody would be in jail.

     Look in The Nation's archives at some of Naomi Klein's work. She addresses some of that.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/27/2005 @ 12:07am

111. Speaking of the price of gasoline: Since the Iraq invasion/occupation, the price of gas has soared. Is the war driving up prices? Yes, in part. The speculative world oil market responds to many factors, but political instability in oil producing countries is a factor. Gulf war = higher oil prices.

     Posted by philbq at 08/27/2005 @ 12:09am

112. OKSG When ar ewe going to wake up and question the religious idology we are now 2000+ yrs into the future and we need to review weather human life is sacured or our survival as a race is. It is good to have faith but only if we as a population of homo sapians understand that it is our current existance that needs to be looked after not the ideology of the past

     Posted by dycel8r at 08/27/2005 @ 12:12am

113. To Todd:

     Thanks, buddy. I didn't think I was crazy.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/27/2005 @ 12:14am

114. JR hopefully

     Posted by dycel8r at 08/27/2005 @ 12:17am

115. Sorry about he spellinf the scotch is getting to me

     Posted by dycel8r at 08/27/2005 @ 12:22am

116. PB

     Didn't we provide the thread of that intelligence based on our prior support and funding of Saddam. IE we gave the raw materials to him?

     Posted by dycel8r at 08/27/2005 @ 12:29am

117. FG - Your reference to Jerry Mahoney and Knucklehead Smith ('Smiff') is probably lost on anyone under at least 50. For those unaware: both were ventriloquist's dummies that sat on the knee of their voice, Paul Winchell; just as their contemporaries Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd were dummies for ventriloquist Edgar Bergen. IMO Winchell was better at it than was Bergen.

     Posted by Bob A at 08/27/2005 @ 12:42am

118. Bruce - if memory serves the intelligence agencies hedged their comments about WMD etc. with words like 'possible'. It was the administration (remember the Office of Special Projects that Feith ran?) that deleted all of the limiting caveats and claimed they were facts. Then, of course, when their WMD justification blew up in their faces they turned around and blamed the intel agencies for providing wrong information when, I think we'll find, they did not. It was the administration, not the agencies, that provided the massaging.

     Posted by Bob A at 08/27/2005 @ 12:52am

119. PB you can excuse everyone involved but reality says that The Bush push to create this war was creative and by only reviewing the intel they wanted to support the war makes your argument hypocritical, assumptions defy reality

     Posted by dycel8r at 08/27/2005 @ 01:29am

120. to wiseowl, yes the people of Iraq drive cars, with heavily subsidised gas, imported no less by the occupation authorities

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/27/2005 @ 08:45am

121. PLAINBRUCE: Let me give you some common sense logic: Since no WMD's were found during an exhaustive search after the invasion,there were no WMD's at the time of the invasion. Since the central reason gived for the invasion was WMD's, the invasion was done on false pretenses, meaning an untruth. There were many, including former weapons inspectors who doubted that Iraq had WMD's at the time of the invasion. But the Bush Administration brushed any doubts aside in their rush to invade. That seems obvious to me. I don't know about you.

     Posted by philbq at 08/27/2005 @ 09:40am

122. Frankgrits,

     CPT, OK, I see where you are coming from now. You aren't just a recruiter, you are a recruiter with an agenda. No wonder you couldn't answer my questions, "Would you be willing to go to schools and educate the kids about the abuses of power that our leaders have commited and the thousands of troops who have died or lost their limbs because of it. Will you start doing that tomorrow. Will you suggest it to your officers and take the inititive? Start with the eleven year olds." Frankgrits.

     Military recruiters are as slick as the slickest Madison Avenue creation for selling cigarettes and alcohol - it is their job; and I see CPT participating in these blogs as part of the military's new efforts to persuade parents to encourage their "kids" to enlist.

     The mission of the military is to conduct wars, and wars consist of death and destruction; young people who enter the military should be made fully aware of those twin characters of the military. And a military's leaders who forget those military characteristics will suffer the greater combat casualties than those who do remember them.

     It is hypocritical to be opposed to the war in Iraq and to Bush lies for getting us into that debacle, but then support CPT's efforts to recruit more "kids" to be fodder for Bush's calamitous war in Iraq.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/27/2005 @ 10:22am

123. Jorcheim,

     "we helped bring the Ba'athists to power, we supported Saddam's rise to power, we funded and supplied his development of chem and bio weapons for use against Iran... would you like for me to go on?" Posted by JORCHEIM 08/26/2005 @ 11:37pm

     Jorcheim, I find your statement misleading. We gave Saddam chem & bio weapons only when Iran was about to overrun Iraq but, to say we funded his rise to power is misleading and not very accurate. Saddam rose to power through assasinations, fear, intimidation, and murder long before we supported his regime during the Iraq/Iran war. And correct me if I'm wrong but, wasn't it the British who help bring the Ba'athist into power?

     For the rest of the oil conspiracy theorist:

     Do I think oil was the only reason we went to war? No!

     Do I think oil plays a important role in foreign policy? Yes!

     Do I think we need alternative fuels? Yes!

     Would it be neccessary to go to war to protect our oil interest? Hell yes!

     Like it or not, oil is a vital part of our national security interest and a vital part of our survival. No administration, (Democrat or Republican) would ever allow our dependence of oil to be cut or impeded. Especially this day in age when the global demand and competion is at a all time high. It would be a total disaster for us. Not to mention the global impact. Are you willing to live your life like it was prior to the industrial revolution? Look in your home. Do you have any idea how many products you use were derived from petroleum? Do you realize that the keyboard you will use to type a insulting response to this was derived from petroleum? Like your 401K? How would it look when our economy crashes because of its ties to oil? How would you like it when your food can't make it to the market? How would you like it if we had to cut every damn tree down to use as a substitute for products derived from petroleum? I can go on forever......

     Do any of you have any idea why Iraq invaded Kuwait? Yep, oil! Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi soil. Its all about oil, oil, and more oil. Get over it already!!!!! Either find a alternative energy source for all those cars, trucks, trains, planes and products, (that people will buy) or quit complaining about it. Right now we don't have a choice. I guess that's why we keep making deals with the devil. Where do you think terrorist get their funding? Every administration, (Dem or Rep) knows we would have no other choice than to go to war to secure our current and future needs. I'm just sick and tired of hearing its just Bush's fault. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Even that peanut farmer would shed blood for oil.

     Posted by redstateman at 08/27/2005 @ 10:29am

124. redstateman, your problem is that you see everything in absolutes, nothing in between, as if by pursuing rational pacifist policies would mean the end of civilisation as we know it. for you oil is the "Lebensraum" justification for Hitler's invasion of Russia. to look at just one of your points on the food supply. dearer oil would perhaps mean that we consume food that is grown in our region instead of being shipped across country. the farmer that lives two hours from NYC would have a chance to sell his food to supermarkets instead of just the farmer's market. I live in NYC but I cannot buy Long Island potatoes instead of Idaho or Maine. the cost of gasoline is more than just the cost of the oil, refinery and taxes. it is the cost of maintaining a grotesquely bloated military establishment and empire spanning the globe, and that cost is hidden from us.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/27/2005 @ 10:43am

125. France, Germany, and Russia all had signed lucrative oil contracts with Saddam's regime. Does this mean that they chose not to go to war for oil? Does this mean they tolerate brutality for the benifits of oil? What about China's oil contracts with the Sudanese government. Does this mean they tolerate genocide for the benifits of oil? When you are dealing with countries where 90% of their export earning come from oil, you could make any case you want where oil is at the center of it.

     Besides I thought you bought oil, where price is determined by supply and demand. I guess I am wrong.

     Posted by Zeddmen at 08/27/2005 @ 11:17am

126. Senior Iran cleric hails "Islamic state of Iraq"

     Fri. 26 Aug 2005

     Tehran, Iran, Aug. 26 – A senior Iranian cleric welcomed on Friday the establishment of an Islamic republic in Iraq and hailed the country's new constitution as one based on "Islamic precepts".

     Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who heads the powerful ultra-conservative Guardian Council, told worshippers in Tehran's Friday prayers, "Fortunately, after years of effort and expectations in Iraq, an Islamic state has come to power and the constitution has been established on the basis of Islamic precepts". http://tinyurl.com/8kf5a [url]

     This ayatollah has a lot of nerve not to give any credit at all to George Bush and his entourage, the mullah's indispensable allies in the White House. There would be nothing even remotely resembling an Islamic republic of Iraq if the Supreme Court hadn't installed George Bush in the White House in 2000.

     If they insist on not giving our brilliant President credit for creating an Islamic republic in Iraq then I think we should just let them do their own Islamic revolutions from now on. We don't have to stay the course. We can start acting like Americans whenever we want to.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/27/2005 @ 11:22am

127. zedman, you conveniently left out US oil companies who had lucrative contracts for oil, american exceptionalism is the name for your selective amnesia

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/27/2005 @ 11:23am

128. I agree that many mistakes have been made. But George Bush is trying to help these countries. We are talking about partnership, to help the economies, improve the health care, and promote democracy. Whatever you may think about past errors of our country you must agree that we are now trying to the correct actions.

     For anyone to think Bush is motivated to do what he does to help people is ridiculous. If he really wanted to help people he would resign. The only "people" he has helped are his rich and connected friends. Hopefully everyone who reads this was smart enought to buy oil and defense stocks after he was appointed (elected?). That would be the only way to continue filling up those tax incentive bought Hummers. The transfer of wealth that has taken place these past 51/2 years has been stunning. The rich get richer and everyone else pays fr it.

     Posted by bbrizzy at 08/27/2005 @ 11:37am

129. cousin Brucie, there were at least 35 reasons for invading Iraq, and the hits keep on coming, there will be many more. it's refreshing to see that you still remain unconvinced of the absence of WMD, talk about dead enders. are you by chance unconvinced of the moonlanding, believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth with Adam and EVe?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/27/2005 @ 11:39am

130. DYCEL8R,

     "OKSG When ar ewe going to wake up and question the religious idology we are now 2000+ yrs into the future and we need to review weather human life is sacured or our survival as a race is"

     If you want to talk about "survival" of our "race", let's start with the all important issue of destroying our offspring.

     You want to start there?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 11:40am

131. Would it be neccessary to go to war to protect our oil interest? Hell yes!

     are "our" oil interest all over the world?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/27/2005 @ 11:41am

132. Redstatesman,

     "For the rest of the oil conspiracy theorist:

     Do I think oil was the only reason we went to war? No!

     Do I think oil plays a important role in foreign policy? Yes!

     Do I think we need alternative fuels? Yes!

     Would it be neccessary to go to war to protect our oil interest? Hell yes! "

     That's pretty much how I sum up my stance on the issue.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 11:43am

133. sportsguy, are you destroying our oofspring? you are a bit off topic here

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/27/2005 @ 11:44am

134. Would it be neccessary to go to war to protect our oil interest? Hell yes!

     Like it or not, oil is a vital part of our national security interest and a vital part of our survival. No administration, (Democrat or Republican) would ever allow our dependence of oil to be cut or impeded. Especially this day in age when the global demand and competion is at a all time high. It would be a total disaster for us. Not to mention the global impact. Are you willing to live your life like it was prior to the industrial revolution? Look in your home. Do you have any idea how many products you use were derived from petroleum? Do you realize that the keyboard you will use to type a insulting response to this was derived from petroleum? Like your 401K? How would it look when our economy crashes because of its ties to oil? How would you like it when your food can't make it to the market? How would you like it if we had to cut every damn tree down to use as a substitute for products derived from petroleum? I can go on forever......

     Posted by REDSTATEMAN 08/27/2005 @ 10:29am

     Right on, dude! And what about the houses we live in? Did anyone here ever think? Of course not . . . they're too liberal too realize our houses are made out of wood. We could overwhelm Canada in 24 hours and have a free supply of wood that would last for generations.

     And then there's copper. It wouldn't be hard to occupy Chile and steal all their copper. I assume that George Bush, or maybe some of his advisors who can read, have already made contingency plans to steal everything we need from the rest of the world.

     Some may criticize us but we can ignore that. That's one of the advantages of being the most advanced civilization in history. In any case, the idea of earning one's own way in the world is passe'. Anyone who is too traditional to participate enthusiastically will just have to be dragged kicking and screaming into our robber state future.

     Next, we will have to come up with a plan for who we're going to sell our manufacturing products to after we steal everything they have. But that's something we can do later. We have war planning to do now.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/27/2005 @ 11:53am

135. To RedStateMan and Zeddman:

     I know there are some on the left who don't think there is any difference between capitalism and imperialism, but you two are demonstrating that there are those on the right who don't know the difference, either.

     France, Germany and Russia agreed to buy Iraq's oil after negotiating the terms of the sale with the owners of the commodity. That's how the market is supposed to work. For those who see more than a little merit to the blood for oil theory, including me, Bush sent in the Army and the Marines, replaced by force the owners of the commodity with people of his liking and he negotiated with them. That's imperialism.

     Initially after the invasion, Iraq was placed in the hands of an American, Paul Bremer, who lorded it over the Iraqis for over a year in the style of a colonial-style governor general. He made decrees and the interim government that succeeded him were prohibited from repealing them. Bush and the neocons called it "sovereignty", but a government that needs foreign troops to remain in power and can't make its own laws to replace those imposed upon it by a foreign power is a very strange kind of sovereignty. Perhaps it's a new kind of sovereignty to suit a new kind of war.

     The original idea was to privatize Iraq's oil industry. That's not going to happen. The neocons have had to change their plans as their old ones fell apart. They thought invading Iraq was going to be a cakewalk and that the Iraqi people were going to be so grateful to Bush and his pals that they would allow them to pirate Iraq's natural wealth on behalf of western transnational corporations. It didn't work that way.

     Let's not kid ourselves about invading Iraq to spread democracy. Before the invasion, no neoconservative asked any cab driver in Baghdad or longshoreman in Basra what kind of Iraq he wanted after Saddam was gone. They were a lot more interested in the views of an embezzler who left Iraq when he was in his early teens and had spent most of his life in the US.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/27/2005 @ 11:56am

136. PLAINBRUCE: Congress would not have voted to authorize military force because of Saddam being a dictator(the U.S. is friends with many dictators), or Saddam's "not complying with U.N. resolutions".(It is for the U.N. to decide what is a violation of U.N. resolutions.)The only way Bush could have gotten Congress to vote for authorization of military force was WMD's. So the Bush mob pumped the WMD threat picture("smoking gun is a mushroom cloud...". Thus they hyped this nation into invading a nation that was no threat to the U.S. And no amount of weasel words can hide it now.

     Posted by philbq at 08/27/2005 @ 11:57am

137. Don't be fooled into think this has all just happened.

     We should thank all those involved for making us so dependant on oil. We had our warning back in the 70's. What did our elected leaders do? Remember these elected officials are still in office. (Thats why we need term limits) Slowly over time they reduced CAFE standards , passed tax incentives to promote buying of gas guzzlers, and started a war in the middle of the oil producing nations. The plan was to get consuption up, then manage the supply to keep the price up.

     Did anyone in the administration think the price of oil was going down with war? No they knew good and well the price of oil would skyrocket. But thats ok, it pays back the oil companies for all the money they have spent getting their no talent, can't hold a job, oil executive to be President Who profits from all this.

     Oil Companies Haliburton Bectel Carlyle Group and of course the small percentage of the population who own them.

     Who suffers---- the everyday common man.

     And we have'nt seen anything yet. I wonder what the Christin right will think of Mr Bush when the heat bills for their churches come in this winter double from last winter.

     Some churches can just raise the prices on their coffee right Todd?

     Posted by bbrizzy at 08/27/2005 @ 11:58am

138. Lastly, Bush always gave 4 or 5 reasons for invading Iraq (murderous dictator, ignoring UN resolutions, etc.), all of which were real and legitimate. WMDs was the one that resonated the most with Americans, so they emphasized that one, but it was never the SOLE reason for invading.

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 08/27/2005 @ 11:30am

     WMD was the only reason that would justify the costs of war for Americans and you know it. The rest was window dressing.

     The continuing and unremittant dishonesty of the Republicans is truly disturbing. They seem to be utterly incapable of honesty.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/27/2005 @ 12:02pm

139. "sportsguy, are you destroying our oofspring? you are a bit off topic here"

     No, on the contrary, I would suggest if the person that asked me the question about "the survival of our race" wanted to talk about things that we need to do to ensure survival, we needed to first address the legal method in which we kill our offspring.

     I personally would suggest that if we want our race to survive, we might want to rethink that practice.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 12:55pm

140. "We have war planning to do now."

     right.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 12:57pm

141. sportsguy meet Josef Mengele, he also had a few things to say about saving our race, by the way wich race are you referring to

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/27/2005 @ 1:02pm

142. " Josef Mengele"

     He was that famous soccer player right?

     Todd = )

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 1:15pm

143. Boy, I leave for a few minutes to take a phone call and return to see I might have started WWIII. This board was getting boring anyway.

     Johannnesrolf,

     Yes, I see things in absolutes but, I'd rather call it reality. Your problem is you don't. If it cost a local farmer 50 dollars a bushel to bring his potato's to market and it cost a idaho farmer 30 dollars a bushel to produce his and bring them to market, Which potatoes are likely to end up on the store shelves? Why would anyone pay 5 bucks a pound for potato's when they can pay 3 bucks a pound? If people had to buy only locally produced foods and the demand cannot be met people could end up paying 20 to 100 bucks a pound for potato's. (Supply and Demand) Also, without competition, the price goes up as well. This is based on FACT and Reality. Not some conjured up fantasy. Also, we need a strong military. Our tanks and planes don't run on water. Without a strong defense we subject ourselves to invasion and cannot defend ourselves. Although we don't have huge oil reserves we have plenty of other natural resources other countries with strong military's would like to have. WWII Japan comes to mind. But, maybe if we all hold hands and sing kumbiya the rest of the world would leave us alone and we can all share a big pot of Long Island potato's together and live happely ever after! Sorry, but I just don't think its going to happen.

     Posted by redstateman at 08/27/2005 @ 1:15pm

144. Todd, I was stumped by a friend's multiple choice question, what do you think? Jenna Bush is out partying and has a one-nighter with a black rap singer. She ends up pregnant. What happens next?

     A) Her family arranges for a top secret abortion and then forces her to live with her grandmother in Texas to prevent it happening again. B) The baby is given up for adoption and the war with Iran is launched to provide some distraction. C) The family forces a marriage with Justin Timberlake and then Pat Robertson explains that the baby's color is God's punishment for Jusin's sinful Super Bowl show with Janet Jackson. D) Jenna marries the black rap singer, her family disowns her, and Dick Cheney starts to proudly point out in his speeches that his daughter Mary is living with a white person.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 1:37pm

145. Anxious,

     Great questions!

     Number one, obviously I can't answer for her, as I have no idea how she feels personally on the issue of abortion.

     with that said, it will be fun to take a stab at the question!

     I would have to say actually it would be "B", and here's my theory as to why...

     The whole Bush family does profess openly their Christianity, if that's the case then I would guess they probably would view abortion as a morally incorrect thing to do as most Christians do.

     However we all know that the Bush girls are still party animals! So the likely hood of the knock up is very plausible.

     Bush most definitely wouldn't want the media circus and frenzy that would swarm around the incident so the public would hear about a LONG "get back to nature" excursion that Jenna would soon be embarking on, where she would be secluded from the public in the Rocky Mountains, and said nature adventure would last right about about 10 months. After which she would appear bright eyed and bushy tailed fresh from her nature extravaganza, and ready to return to school.

     In the mean time, to defer public scrutiny and questions away from the "nature adventure", Bush does open a new front on the "war on terror" into Iran, and while there we tell them the way they will set up a new democracy that will be a new friendly U.S. oil trading partner just like Iraq.

     Hot dang, I hit the trifecta with this one, we now have two new oil trading partners, AND fixed Jenna's little "problem"

     Who's giving me the Nobel prize for my new "social-economics" model?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 1:54pm

146. great answer! I should have included "knock up" in describing the scenario.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 1:59pm

147. .

     FROMREDBIRD

     In case you missed it, I responded to your Halabja post under Katrina vanden Heuvel's last blog entry: The Importance of Being Lazy

     .

     Posted by nacl at 08/27/2005 @ 2:00pm

148. I think PLAIN BRUCE has a good point. So instead of launching the war and having the hypothetical WMDs moved to Who Knows Where, maybe we should have quietly kept a close eye on them where they were.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 2:04pm

149. oksportsguy:

     I see you jumped ship on the other thread. Got in a little over your head.

     NACL:

     What invective do you plan on spewing today?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2005 @ 2:20pm

150. Jack rabbit,

     You are taking what I said out of context. BTW, I do consider capitalismm and imperialism two different things. I don't believe we went to war for oil. If it becomes a byproduct of war, I don't have a problem with that. As long as the host country wants to sell its oil to us I wouldn't call that imperialism. Beside if this war was just about oil than why are we pushing $3 a gallon? It's not because the terrorist blow up a pipeline every once in awhile or production is low. In fact, post war production exceeds pre war production. The Iraqi's know that if the US doesn't pay market price for their oil then they can always sell to someone else who will. They are not that dumb. I have yet to see any proof that we have any advantage over other countries for Iraqi oil. Price dictates the oil market. If we had a huge deal for Iraqi oil then the world price of oil would drop. In fact the opposite is true. So if this war is about imperialism and oil, then why haven't we seen the benefits enjoyed by this imperialistic venture. Could it be because there isn't any?

     Posted by redstateman at 08/27/2005 @ 2:46pm

151. Todd,

     Thanks for the support!

     Posted by redstateman at 08/27/2005 @ 3:16pm

152. JOHANNESROLF: Thank you for you humorous post "it's not polite to call other people morons. also the issue of slavery had not come to the front during the writing of the constitution, can you cite any proof for your statement?" Hey, Johan, how about the constitution itself? Here's a good link for you: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html Slavery was indeed a hot button issue at the time of the writing and ratification of the US constitution. I can't believe anyone so quick to join in the criticism of Bush for his alleged lack of historical knowledge would be himself so ignorant. (Well, actually I can believe it because i see it happen all the time.) And guess what, there other issues too! Take the establisment clause, which you probably think just means the federal government can't establish a federal religion. Oh, how wrong you would be once again! The clause means additionally that the federal government also couldn't prevent individual states from having their own "established religion" as several states did at the time, that's why the clause is worded the way it is. It wasn't until the 14th amendment (requiring states adopt the bill of rights) that states were actually constitutionally prohibited from having state religions.

     Isn't history wonderful? Much better than assuming you already know everything worth knowing. And yes, I am happy to call anyone a moron who does not know how little he really knows.

     Posted by jeck at 08/27/2005 @ 3:16pm

153. FROMREDBIRD

     In case you missed it, I responded to your Halabja post under Katrina vanden Heuvel's last blog entry: The Importance of Being Lazy

     Posted by NACL 08/27/2005 @ 2:00pm

     Yeah, I did miss it, and so what? Do you really think anyone here, who isn't a Charles Manson-type like you, gives a damn what you write? He had a creepy, delusinal rationale for everything he did just like you. But he was taken off the streets to make the world a better place to live and they stopped too soon, you're proof of that.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/27/2005 @ 3:26pm

154. Todd,

     Thanks for the support!

     Posted by REDSTATEMAN 08/27/2005 @ 3:16pm

     You mass murderers need to stick together. Osama would be admire your solidarity.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/27/2005 @ 3:29pm

155. To RedStateMan:

     The reason that we haven't seen the benefits of an imperialist war for oil is that the plan was flawed. You are correct in stating that gasoline prices aren't pushing $3/gallon because the insurgents are blowing up pipelines. It is pushing $3/gallon because large developing nations like China and India have become more developed, causing a record demand for oil and thus putting an upward pressure on the price (the market works like that, too). This upward pressure has been coincidental to the invasion. The emergence of China and India was not something that was being counted on happening quite so soon.

     In any case, since I don't think the Bushies really believed their own hype about WMDs and links to al Qaida, they must have had some other reason to invade Iraq and they obviously didn't want to talk about it. The desire to commit colonial piracy is among my candidates for the real reasons; the desire to construct permanent military bases (the better to commit colonial piracy with, my dear) is another.

     The Iraqis know that if the US doesn't pay market price for their oil then they can always sell to someone else who will.

     The flaw in your reasoning is in that assumption. Last time I checked, Paul Bremer is not an Iraqi and had no business making long term decisions in the name of the Iraqi people. If Bremer was making those decisions from 2003 to mid-2004, then no one can say that "the Iraqis" were.

     As a matter of fact, any plans to privatize Iraq's oil industry have since been abandoned. The draft Iraqi constitution makes clear that Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi people (Chapter 4, Article 109). That was one of the features of the United Iraqi Alliance's program when they won almost half the vote in January; as [i]The Nation[/i]'s Naomi Klein rightly pointed out, the election results flew in the face of neoconservative designs on Iraq ("Getting the Purple Finger [thenation.com]", posted February 10).

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/27/2005 @ 3:40pm

156. To FromRedBird (concerning your posts at 3:26 and 3:29):

     Cool it, man. There's no reason to be inflammatory.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/27/2005 @ 3:42pm

157. To Plain Bruce:

     My apologies if you thought I attacked you. Please point out where. I haven't addressed a post of yours of which I am aware; this really leaves me in the dark.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/27/2005 @ 3:45pm

158. Today's entry on dahr Jamail's blog would be an excelent read for anybody reading this board

     dahr's blog [dahrjamailiraq.com]

     Posted by carpenters at 08/27/2005 @ 3:51pm

159. URMY

     I wouldnt fret much about NACL. He/she misquotes and inflames at will, but when confronted with facts and knowldege has no meaningful response.

     Bottom line: NACL isn't worth his/her salt...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/27/2005 @ 4:11pm

160. " see you jumped ship on the other thread. Got in a little over your head.

     NACL:

     What invective do you plan on spewing today? "

     Actually, read the other thread, I extrapolated on your argument about legalizing bad behavior and took it out a few degrees to show it's stupidity.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 4:19pm

161. More good reading

     file under "neo-cons have shit for brains" [iranfocus.com]

     Posted by carpenters at 08/27/2005 @ 4:24pm

162. John Nichols says in this article: "But that logic escapes our President". Well duh... Dubya' was asleep in class or cuttin' up throwing paper airplanes (NOTE: incidently that would never fly as he never* did either!) at Yale* when the American History professor was droning on and on about the Marquis de Lafayette, his commander Rochambeau, General George Washington, and all dem' funny lookin' fellers' back then that he can't seem to remember any more. All he can remember is that George W. had the same first name as him. "Goollleee..." - Gomer Pyle USMC.

     John spoke of "Iraqi wish lists" and we all know, or at least we should know, that the number one wish they have is for "YANKEE GO HOME!" Sound familiar? Well it just stymies me how when the Saudis told us a coupla' years ago to GET THE H*LL OUT! Ol' Dubya "gets outta' Dodge" or from Saudi soil post haste with no back talk to the House of Saud. Hmmmm... now we can stay in the Red Sea, maybe Yemen, Socotra, and Diego Garcia so its not a total military base loss. But when the Iraqis and the Afghans make a similiar less forceful request all they get back is static and Rovian talking points. WTF is going on here! Are we secret pawns of the Likud Party and Saudia Arabia? How can we be both? I thought they hated each other with a passion?

     FAKE-TEXAN-ese: Wat' up paw? Did sumbody' went an' revised American history on me again? Dang it all...

     ----------------

     As this topic will go away soon like all of the others... I offer http://groups.google.com/group/Gestalt7 as a topic continuer... Everyone is welcome! Will build to suit (within reason). John Nichols welcome too. :-)

     ----------------

     Spooky

     COPY & PASTE URL TO YOUR ADDRESS FIELD IN BROWSER & HIT [ENTER]

     * Bush at Yale? http://tinyurl.com/bq5b5

     * Bush Flying? http://tinyurl.com/9j74j

     WTF! How come some can url tag but others can't??? And don't say its filtered on only news and .edu web sites as the above two are at Yale and BBC! Your web site changes are wierd Nation!

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/27/2005 @ 4:28pm

163. Bush at Yale [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/27/2005 @ 4:32pm

164. Bush Flying [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/27/2005 @ 4:33pm

165. Spooky,

     Check out my tags of your web suggestion; see if that is what you wanted done.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/27/2005 @ 4:34pm

166. Uh, spooky, the instructions for posting a link are right above the words Type your message here:

     Posted by carpenters at 08/27/2005 @ 4:34pm

167. John Nichols says in this article: "But that logic escapes our President". Well duh... Dubya' was asleep in class or cuttin' up throwing paper airplanes (NOTE: incidently that would never fly as he never did either!) at Yale when the American History professor was droning on and on about the Marquis de Lafayette, his commander Rochambeau, General George Washington, and all dem' funny lookin' fellers' back then that he can't seem to remember any more. All he can remember is that George W. had the same first name as him. "Goollleee..." - Gomer Pyle USMC.

     John spoke of "Iraqi wish lists" and we all know, or at least we should know, that the number one wish they have is for "YANKEE GO HOME!" Sound familiar? Well it just stymies me how when the Saudis told us a coupla' years ago to GET THE H*LL OUT! Ol' Dubya "gets outta' Dodge" or from Saudi soil post haste with no back talk to the House of Saud. Hmmmm... now we can stay in the Red Sea, maybe Yemen, Socotra, and Diego Garcia so its not a total military base loss. But when the Iraqis and the Afghans make a similiar less forceful request all they get back is static and Rovian talking points. WTF is going on here! Are we secret pawns of the Likud Party and Saudia Arabia? How can we be both? I thought they hated each other with a passion?

     FAKE-TEXAN-ese: Wat' up paw? Did sumbody' went an' revised American history on me again? Dang it all...

     ----------------

     As this topic will go away soon like all of the others... I offer GESTALT-7 as a topic continuer... Everyone is welcome! Will build to suit (within reason). John Nichols welcome too. :-)

     ----------------

     Spooky

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/27/2005 @ 4:45pm

168. Yup... I see what I did wrong the first time... I was using just (less than) url= tag used at other forums rather than the (less than) A tag used here. But that doesn't explain what happened in the post above. There I fixed the mistakes but all it did was underline my url label names. But I did test the a correct tag method in preview and it does work. This is wierd. Any who I'll make sure to use the A tag correctly in the future...

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/27/2005 @ 4:51pm

169. To FROMREDBIRD "...Osama would be admire your solidarity..." - 8/27/05 3:29 PM

     Hmmm... let me see. Most of us here are Liberals or lean towards the left like me here at THE NATION. All of the politicians we admired (D) & (R) were TRICKED into voting for this "military action" which was predicated on catching Osama for they were told he was responsible for 9-11. They were also tricked into supporting this black operation in SW Asia based on a prefabricated lie, as the Brits so graciously point out to us in the once secret Downing Street Memo [downingstreetmemo.com]. Now for some God-d*** strange reason our CIA chief (R) tells us that he knows where Osama is [cnn.com] but won't go get him. Somewhere along the way and about 2,000 military "mass-murders" later we lost our way!

     NOW TELL ME AGAIN WHO IS "IN BED" (aka "Solidarity") WITH THE BIN LADEN FAMILY AGAIN?

     Spooky

     PS - I figured out my url tag major malfunction - I experienced a DBI (Dubya' Brain Infarction) ;->

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/27/2005 @ 5:15pm

170. REDSTATEMAN... Sorry it took so long for me to respond. But you asked for it.

     First off, I get the impression that you look at history as an endless parade of discrete events which have no relation to anything prior to or following it... at least, that is my perspective, seeing as so many people on the right especially (but the left is not blameless here, either). You are correct, that Great Britain had a tremendous part to play in bringing the Ba'athists to power. What you either fail to understand, realize, or acknowledge is that the US was the sole guarantor of British freedom of action in the Middle East following WWII. Don't believe me, go read about how we bankrolled GB's actions regarding Iran and the overthrow of Mohammed Mossedegh, and the re-installation of the dictatorship of the Pahlavi family. This was done under the watchful eye of Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, a well known CIA operative. Another very good example of a CIA-organized regime change was the coup in 1963 that employed political assassination, mass imprisonment, torture and murder. This was the military coup that first brought the Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq. At the time, Richard Helms was Director for Plans at the CIA. That is the top CIA position responsible for covert actions, like organizing coups. Helms served in that capacity until 1966, when he was made Director. The name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go! In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq. If more people knew about this diabolical history, they just might not be so inclined to trust the US in its current efforts to execute regime change in Iraq, or anywhere else we happen to see Reds or terrorists, lurking behind every corner. Now, regarding your referring to my comments about us providing biological and chemical weapons to Iraq as misleading, allow me to respond. You have to ask yourself... first, why were Iran and Iraq at war with one another? First, it comes down to the realpolitik technique of dividing and conquering. You will note that by this time, the Shah had been once more unceremoniously tossed from office, and due SPECIFICALLY to our overthrowing the popularly elected and massively supported Mossedegh regime in 1953 (right before we overthrew the Guatemalan Social Democratic regime of Jacobo Arbenz, mind you), the extremely fundamentalist Khomeini mullah regime came to power. See, when you staunch the desires of a population, they will resort to extremes. And all you have to do is look at Hitler's rise to power to see what sorts of results that can create. At any rate, we were actively supporting Iraq. The war began on September 22, 1980, when Iraqi troops launched a full-scale invasion of Iran. Prior to this date there had been subversion by each country inside the other and also major border clashes. Iraq hoped for a lightning victory against an internationally isolated neighbor in the throes of revolutionary upheaval. But despite Iraq's initial successes, the Iranians rallied and, using their much larger population, were able by mid-1982 to push the invaders out. In June 1982, the Iranians went over to the offensive, but Iraq, with a significant advantage in heavy weaponry, was able to prevent a decisive Iranian breakthrough. The war was over on August 20, 1988, after approximately 1 million combat deaths, and untold civilian casualties. It must be remembered that while it is true that Iran had vast numerical superiority, Iraq had vast technological superiority in the form of artillery, mechanization, and, by 1986, chemical and biological weaponry, provided by the US. If Iraq had been overrun, it would not be the first time one state had lost a war to another, especially considering the fact that Iraq started the war. So, it is NO EXCUSE that we provided these at the time Geneva convention controlled weapons to Iraq. As for me being an oil conspiracy theorist... ok, ask yourself... what is a conspiracy?

     con·spir·a·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spîr-s) n. pl. con·spir·a·cies An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. A group of conspirators. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

     So, according to Websters. it is any situation where two or more people are planning to do something bad for their own benefit to the detriment of the community at large, however large that community happens to be. In this case, the community is the world, and the benefit to them is an almost incalculable financial windfall. So if you wanna call me a conspiracy nut, go ahead. You, my friend, need to get your head out of the sand, your rectum, or whatever dark hole you have chosen to allow your head to reside.

     Do I think oil was the only reason we went to war? You're right, it isn't the ONLY reason we went to war. Actually, oil, to be honest, isn't the actual reason at all. The reason we went to war was control. Control over a scarce resource that is typically found in a particular geographical region. It's all about economics, baby, and oil just happens to be the commodity du jour.

     Do I think oil plays a important role in foreign policy? Absolutely. However, we have forced that reality upon ourselves by allowing oil companies and related industries to dictate our energy policy. Remember the energy commision led by Cheney when Bush first took office? I wonder why the minutes to that meeting or the attndance logs weren't made public? Hmmm?

     Do I think we need alternative fuels? This is such a no-brainer, it really needs no elaboration. However, the oil companies have been downright inimical to allowing any competition in the way of alternative fuels for the better part of 40 years now. That is called anti-competitive behavior, and is subject to sanction by the US government (and this would be enforced were the government not such the whore of Babylon for oil and other large corporations instead of being the protector of the commons, as it is supposed to be).

     Would it be neccessary to go to war to protect our oil interest? No. And by saying that it is, you are simply being myopic and simpleminded. War is almost NEVER the answer. According to our constitution, war is only to be entered into in a defensive manner. While economic interests are important, if we had marshalled our energy resources and maintained growth along a MUCH more sustainable track, this would not be an issue... as it stands, we are like a junkie hitting the local 7-11 to make sure we have enough for our next fix and damn the consequences for the future.

     You said, and I quote, "oil is a vital part of our national security interest and a vital part of our survival. No administration, (Democrat or Republican) would ever allow our dependence of oil to be cut or impeded." My answer to you is, you are probably right. That means we need to drop both parties like a bad habit, and find someone who knows more about diplomacy than "if you arn't with us, you are against us."

     You asked "Are you willing to live your life like it was prior to the industrial revolution? Look in your home. Do you have any idea how many products you use were derived from petroleum? Do you realize that the keyboard you will use to type a insulting response to this was derived from petroleum? Like your 401K? How would it look when our economy crashes because of its ties to oil? How would you like it when your food can't make it to the market? How would you like it if we had to cut every damn tree down to use as a substitute for products derived from petroleum? I can go on forever......"

     To answer your question... first off, I don't think that this is only a binary set of options. There are MANY more options than just "go to war to protect our addiction to oil" and "revert back to a technologically backward time before the advent of cheap energy". You aren't thinking 4th dimensionally. :D

     You asked me: "Do any of you have any idea why Iraq invaded Kuwait? Yep, oil! Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi soil. Its all about oil, oil, and more oil. " Honestly, that is the first astute comment you have made in your response to me. But you are wrong to say that we don't have a choice. The only reason it seems that way is we are constantly being told that there isn't a choice. And that, my friend, is bullshit.

     And to close, allow me to respond to this gem of a comment. "I guess that's why we keep making deals with the devil. Where do you think terrorist get their funding? Every administration, (Dem or Rep) knows we would have no other choice than to go to war to secure our current and future needs. I'm just sick and tired of hearing its just Bush's fault. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Even that peanut farmer would shed blood for oil."

     We keep making deals with the devil because we as a country are dedicated to the profit motive. We are dedicated to making sure that, whatever the cost, our IMMEDIATE "needs" are met, nevermind the destruction we are causing, economically, ecologically, and most importantly diplomatically. We are NOT the city on the hill... unless of course you mean the city on the hill that is surrounded by shanties for as far as the eye can see. If you think that is right, and you think that supporting murderous regimes and overthrowing democratically elected regimes is a good idea... then prepare yourself for endless attacks of anger and retribution by the third world. Believe me, we can devise the most destructive bombs in the world... but eventually, when everyone hates our guts, and we have no friends, our choices really will be binary. Either accept that we are in the wrong and change our ways, or bomb the ENTIRE world back beyond the stone age. I just hope that in that situation, the world will be gracious enough to allow us to mend our ways, and not be as hateful and singleminded as we have been.

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 5:21pm

171. When the clock is broken.

     Two Times a Day a Broken Clock is Right [news.yahoo.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/27/2005 @ 5:27pm

172. REGARDING GESTALT-7 [groups.google.com] TN (i.e. THE-NATION) TOPIC CONTINUANCE GOOGLE GROUP... If some of you are worried about the initial warning... Please do not worry about the ADULT CONTENT warning I accidently turned that on when I set it up. There is no porn there unless you call what Dubya is doing to America porn! ;-> I asked GOOGLE to turn the warning off. They should do it in a couple of days. I had another full on DBI... sorry!

     ----------------------------------

     JORCHEIM Loved your extremely long but quite interesting post - right on! Also you could have posted it at GESTALT-7 (see above) and put a small url link reference to it to save us scroll time. Google has a lot of disk space! Food for thought...

     I took the liberty to set up a link for your historic rebuttal just in case you need to refer to it in the future if TN deletes this thread in the interest of disk space conservation: Jorcheim's Rebuttal! [groups.google.com]

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/27/2005 @ 6:14pm

173. SPOOKY_SR hey thanks bro... I appreciate the kind words and the posting for archival purposes. Love and brownies.

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 6:16pm

174. redstate, where do you get your factoid that post war oilproduction has exceeded pre war production? I dont think that is true, fact check please. to Jeck, you are of course correct, I know that constitution bit too. my point was that the disagreement over the slaves during the convention was not the same as the disagreement that caused the war. the former was about whether slaves could be both property and heads counted for representation. the three fifths solution was the compromise. abolition advocacy had not yet begun in the US., I believe. Britain which was the first to abolish in 1878. the beef with the war was among other things about abolition, slaves out west, and secession to be brief, and not in that order of importance. I'm crashing this thread when scrolling, anyone else?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/27/2005 @ 6:54pm

175. JOHANNESROLF you are correct in general about the basic outlines of the slavery issue during the constitutional congress. As pretty much everything, it came down to the issue of power and money. Although the abolition movement had its beginnings in colonial America, the actual birthdate of American abolitionism as a verifiable movement began when the American Colonization Society was founded in 1817. It led antislavery protests during the early 1800's. Its goal was to send the free slaves to Liberia, Africa.

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 7:02pm

176. JOR

     Whew....quite a bit of reading. Might try "bite-sized' bits next time! (of course, this ain't exactly short either...)

     Overall I tend to agree. We are at the down-side of the Hubbert peak meaning like 30-50 yrs petroleum left at best. [Am currently a student of organic geochemistry, so knowing about that sort of thing is part of what I study.] However, the auto industry hasn't yet (or perhaps is just now) developing the impetus to forge into alternatives.

     Heck, the way they talk about hybrid technology you'd think they thought of it. Not true. The basic of gas/electric hybrids w/regenerative braking was developed by an electrical engineer in Arkansas (I believe) back in the 1970's Plans still available from The Mother Earth News(...although a bit dated for the stock parts.)

     The impending energy crunch is not our only upcoming dilemma. As climate changes and populations increase we are bound to run up against the caloric ceiling. Simply put, the amount of potential calories that can be produced is a simple function of the amount of arable land and the sunlight it receives (assuming proper plant nutrients, etc. ) Conversion to meat-protein source reduces this efficiency enourmously. [Not that I am a vegetaria...I am not, although I do make it a point to browse low on the food chain in general.] Barring floating oceanic hydroponic platforms (requiring enourmous energy expenditures to desalinate] or some other novel new technology the caloric ceiling is around 10 billion people (all eating a bit less than the average American...oops, ther went seconds on pizza)

     Of course, if global warming actually does follow the paths that some predict, then arable regions will shift to higher latitudes making more arable land available, which is good food-wise...of course in will be in Canada and Siberia (so another war then...the "corn wars of 2046"?)

     BTW: I have the full "Dubya's Fireside Theater (from FrankGrits) on-line at: HERE [geodude.home.mchsi.com]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/27/2005 @ 7:09pm

177. LEFTOFCENTER... too right about oil not being the only issue confronting us in the foreseeable future. All good points you made. Allow me to continue on a tangent from a point you made. The climate, as you mentioned, is changing. Now, many people (mostly arch-conservative pro-business types) believe that global warming is a chimera that simply is not supported by the data. While I disagree with that (I happen to believe that there is ample data showing rather dramatic climactic change worldwide), the point they continue to make is that since it's called global warming, then by definition there should be this indefatiguable march toward warmer climes all over the place. For some reason, I believe conservatives lack a gene that allows them to understand nuance. One of the fundaments of global warming is that "global" warming is not necessarily the result. Localised warming, such as at the poles, can create enormous ecological changes, e.g. the melting of the polar ice caps, and those local changes can affect the system as a whole. And considering the fact that with one major exception in the sun, and almost inconsequential yet innumerable exceptions in the form of small meteoroids, etc, the earth is a closed system. Hence, if something catastrophic occurs, e.g. Mt St Helens, Krakatoa, Vesuvius, Chernoble, etc. areas as far away as the opposite side of the world can and usually are affected. Granted, the level of nuance in such an explanation isn't extremely high, but it seems conservatives lack the ability to grasp even that small level of grey area.

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 7:21pm

178. typo on last post, should of course have read 1785 instead of 1878, sorry

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/27/2005 @ 7:40pm

179. JOR

     Quite so...and to add a bit more counter-intuitive information. Net warming over time may be what, in fact, triggers ice ages. [Huh...so hot it gets cold?]

     Increases in average temperature puts more water vapor (i.e: clouds) into play. Clouds are white, white reflect light...drives temp down in certain regions, especially poles. Ice accumulates, ice is white, reflects sunlight....and so on. (Kind of a "The Day After Tomorrow" but not in like 10 days (or whatever it was) or "super cold space air" and "frigid hurricanes")

     Also, as correctly pointed out, change is not neccesarily warming. Atmosphere / hydrosperic couplings are being affected which affects gas exchange and oceanic vertical temperture transfer (the latter being driven by a delicate dance of tempertature and salinity differentials.) If vertical currents slow down, then the one and ONLY thing that effectively sequesters CO2 slows down...

     Gaia hypothesis: Is the planet self-regulating? Will some mystical shift of parameters always keep us within the "biological viability window"? To a degree, no doubt. Do we really know what that degree...uh, no way. There have been many major extinctions over geologic time. Most, if not all, were climate related. We as a species could wind up being in some future's Historical Geology text for no particular reason at all...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/27/2005 @ 8:31pm

180. LEFTOFCENTER... you mentioned major extinctions. I believe it is also critical to note the rate of species extinction currently. In fact, we are experiencing a dramatic reduction of biodiversity on a scale not experienced since whatever cataclysmic event triggered the megadeath of the dinosaurs, et al. Biodiversity is critical to our survival, and this is simply ANOTHER one of those issues staring us in the face down the road.

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 8:43pm

181. Yet another issue... avian flu... discuss... :(

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 10:41pm

182. JOR

     Only a matter of time until the human to human vector develops. It already can transmit from bird to human. A few more mutations and bingo....the human to human strain will have evolved.

     And the creationists say there is no evolution...maybe they can take a lesson from a chicken.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/27/2005 @ 11:13pm

183. LEFTOFCENTER... too right... what scares me just as much as this avian flu is the selective breeding of superbacteria, through the use of all these anti-bacterial soaps (and everything else). Maybe the doom-and-gloom fundamentalist Armageddonists are right... but for the wrong reasons... scary. But hey, that's why we have such a great health care system. Oh wait...

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:23pm

184. JOR (and anyone else>

     We've all heard of "Mad cow" and its variants (scrappie, Creutzfeldt-Jacobs syndrome, kuru) that are caused by prions. Prions are NOT a pathogen in that they are not alive (not even at the virus level) in that there is NO RNA or DNA...just an odd protein molecule. A specific clump of amino acids. However, this protein, when it comes into contact with other proteins common in nerve tissue unzips them into their component amino acids - and makes replicates of itself. Without thought, without life - just an organized chemical pattern.

     Why do I mention this....easy, Prions are a good case, perhaps the best case, for the model of the origin of life. It was probably something very like a prion "in the beginning." A chemical that replicates itself simply because it can, due to a particular molecular quirk. It's not a big jump from there to something a bit more organized - like a cell (a protein rolled in a "fatty chemical" that traps a bit of seawater inside.)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/27/2005 @ 11:24pm

185. btw, does anyone know what happened to Alludra? Did he/she finally get tired of posting nonsense? For some unknown reason, I am missing him/her. Odd, I know...

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:25pm

186. JOR:

     Superbugs, etc....evolution is occurring all around us at scales that are only visible if you "really look" and think about it. Macroscale evolution is much slower...probably occurring in some species, but subtle changes. Folks tend to forget, evolution requires geologic time spans...tens to hundreds of thousand of years.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/27/2005 @ 11:28pm

187. LEFTOFCENTER... holy crap... someone actually knows what BSE and its ilk is caused by... impressive. My best friend's father is the head pathologist at Duke University... he has been telling me horror stories about what he has seen there over the past couple of decades.

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:41pm

188. Oddly quiet....no holy rollers jumping on the prion thing....Hmmmmm. A rough one to firld I suppose.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 12:03am

189. "Oddly quiet....no holy rollers jumping on the prion thing....Hmmmmm. A rough one to firld I suppose."

     I would just pull the ace out and say that even if the amino acid auto replicated itself without being "alive" first, God still made that happen =

     Going back to the first cause argument.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 12:06am

190. LOC, they don't understand science, because their school books teach creationism... remember? hehehe

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:06am

191. "LOC, they don't understand science, because their school books teach creationism... remember? hehehe"

     Actually I have a college education and the books taught evolution. But I believe God made evolution happen.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 12:07am

192. OKSPORTSGUY... I am not saying you are wrong about God making such a thing happen. You might be right. However, doesn't it make sense to actually tru to figure out what actually happened in ways we can actually understand and discretely study so that we can make our lives better, rather than just leaving it at "oh, God must have done this, and that's good enough for me"?

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:12am

193. ""oh, God must have done this, and that's good enough for me"?"

     I believe in science, and like science, including medicine.

     I believe God heals people supernaturally and through modern medicine.

     So ya, science is a good thing!

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 12:27am

194. Well, at least we can agree on something.

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:34am

195. TODD:

     God still made that happen

     I was gonna say, man can make amino acids...but then figured you'd find a spin back to the almighty...

     re: they don't understand science, because their school books teach creationism..."

     Sadly in KS it may soon be so, and I hear in OH it may already be. Of course the devolution of education might be an argument for evolution (albeit in reverse). The real problem with offering such "alternatives" to evolution in a science class is that creationism & ID are NOT science, nor are they testable as science. So leave them out...OR...bring in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...after all, at least has some data! Put on your pirate suit and join the parade me hearty. Aaaaaaaargh!

     http://www.venganza.org/ [venganza.org]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 01:11am

196. oksportsguy:

     drugs can be legalized. Legalizing pot doesn't mean society has to legalize prostitution, rape and murder.

     Where's the logic in assuming getting a tax stream from drugs no worse and damaging to society than alcohol is equivalent to making moral prostitution, rape and murder? You're full of illogical inferrences oksportsguy. The stupidity is thinking it's ok to have a mind altering drug such as alcohol be legal but not marijuana and other narcotics.

     Hypocrital oksportsguy to condemn the U.S. government for allowing alcohol to be legal but getting on your soap box about marijuana and other narcotics.

     Oh yes, also hypocritical of someone with your personal history. How many DWIs are on your record?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 07:40am

197. Oksportsguy:

     No one would know you have four kids with the amount of time you spend on this blog.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 07:43am

198. "Where's the logic in assuming getting a tax stream from drugs no worse and damaging to society than alcohol is equivalent to making moral prostitution, rape and murder?"

     Because it's the same thing..

     legalizing bad behavior...

     doing drugs is bad behavior,that's why it's currently illegal...

     raping someone is bad behavior,that's why it's currently illegal..

     You say, let's legalize pot to increase the taxe revenue by taxing it.

     I then ask, ok if we do that, why not legalize rape since it happens every day, and tax it as well?

     The point is, who draws the line on what bad behavior we can legalize.

     Your argument is a bad argument because once we legalize pot and America loves the revenue stream, it's a slippery slope from there, what do we legalize next?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 09:06am

199. "No one would know you have four kids with the amount of time you spend on this blog."

     My kids are really none of your business. The only reason you do know I have any is because I have stated it.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 09:07am

200. "No one would know you have four kids with the amount of time you spend on this blog."

     My kids are really none of your business. The only reason you do know I have any is because I have stated it.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 09:10am

201. sorry for the double post.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 09:10am

202. Hmmmm...let me throw a bit of a spin in here (and pardons as it IS Sunday morning and this may offend some therefore) but who said legalizing prostituion is a bad thing? Many "civilized" nations have legalized this trade. It takes it out of the shadows, betters the health aspects of something that WILL occur regardless, has a positive effect on crime in general (decouples both sides of the transaction from legal ramifications, plus pulls it away from associated criminal activity: drugs, pimps, etc.)

     See the report and particularly the stats tables at: HERE [liberator.net]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 10:27am

203. "Hmmmm...let me throw a bit of a spin in here (and pardons as it IS Sunday morning and this may offend some therefore) but who said legalizing prostituion is a bad thing? Many "civilized" nations have legalized this trade. It takes it out of the shadows, betters the health aspects of something that WILL occur regardless, has a positive effect on crime in general (decouples both sides of the transaction from legal ramifications, plus pulls it away from associated criminal activity: drugs, pimps, etc.)"

     Valid points and argument, I'll ask you then the same question I asked Jorcheim.

     Why stop at prositution. If we are going to legalize it because as you say, it happens every day, there are many other things of "bad behavior" that happen every day as well.

     We could legalize rape, it happens every day and would bring it out of the shadows, and we really could see a huge new revenue stream for the federal government if we taxed those that rape other people.

     How about theft? We could legalize theft and tax a percentage of what was stolen, what a huge new revenue stream!

     Legalize heroin, speeding, murder, there are a lot of things that we could bring out of the shadows, into the forefront and tax, which would increase the governments revenue.

     I think you get my point.

     Who is going to the be the one or ones that decide the line on what is allowable to "legalize" and what bad behavior still remains illegal?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 10:32am

204. TODD:

     But why do you equate prostitution as "bad". In the case murder, rape (or robbery for that matter) there are "victims" and often violence. In the case of hard drug use (lets leave weed out of this....no worse than cigs or liquor...) one could easily argue that the victim IS the user (akin at some level to a suicide attempt - self directed harmful behavior). However in the case of prostitution we have a financial transaction between consenting adults for "services rendered". Show me a victim, define the crime...(aside form the current "official" status - which is legal in Reno, etc.)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 11:06am

205. URMY:

     SPORTBOY has time to waste here because the obedient little lady is watching the kids while DAD is on the WEB spreading the good word to lost liberal souls! .........

     Any body who has four kids and spends this much time - in a discussion with strangers that has a dubious purpose......... Well all I can say is, I feel sorry for his kids. Sportboy sounds like a pretty good guy, but I have to wonder what makes this sacrifice in time worth it.......as compared to spending it talking to someone who really matters - like maybe his kids or wife.........

     And , when does he work?

     This must be the modern version of my father hiding behind a newspaper and my mother telling us to not bother our father while he was reading, but that was only an hour each evening after he got home from work!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/28/2005 @ 11:30am

206. Jorcheim,

     I didn't ask for a freaking thesis but, you did a fine job paraphrasing the extra-terrestrial article by, "Richard Sanders". "Richard Helms: CIA Assasination, Regime Change, Mass Murder and Saddam". This garbage has been floating around every, anti-US, Communist, Socialist, Mid East, and Left Wing Radical publications since the first UN sanctions were imposed on Iraq. The sources for this garbage reads like the "Who's Who" for every nut case socialist, communist and every other leftist radical.

     Richard Sanders: Coordinator of "Coalition against arms trade".

     Tim Buckley: "Campaign Against Sanctions in Iraq"

     Spectrezine: "Is a 'radical magazine for the European Left'"

     Mohamoud Sheikh: "Muslimedia"

     Husayn Al Kurdi: Founder and president of "News International" and "Dispatches of the New World Order". BTW, also a supporter of suicide bombers.

     Krystal.com: Search engine based in UK

     Arabies: A pro arab french publication

     Ruth Wilson: Writer for "The Washington Free Press". " An Independent Progressive Newspaper based in Seattle Washington".

     Firethistime.org: Cream of the crop for radical left conspiracy publications. Including works by Micheal Moore, Chomsky, and many other left wing radicals. Here is a small sample of bullshit from this org: "Prisoners are now being employed at miniscule rates to work for corporations during their terms. Companies employing prison labour include Microsoft and AT+T. The so-called prison-industrial complex, with its' privately run facilities, is one of the fastest developing areas of business in the US." -M. Moore Just a bunch of garbage!!!!!!!!!

     Thomas Powers: Author and Contributer for publications like; The Nation, Harpers, Rolling Stone, and The Atlantic. All radical left publications.

     CAN YOU SAY?

     pro·pa·gan·da Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO- Function: noun 1. the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 2. ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.

     "Tell a big enough lie often enough and people will begin to believe you"

     -Josef Goebels, (nazi propaganda minister)

     "con·spir·a·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spîr-s) n. pl. con·spir·a·cies An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or "SUBVERSIVE" act. A group of conspirators."

     Yep, Sounds about right to me!

     You got allot of nerve to try and pass this garbage off as fact "my friend". What a waste of time. Not to mention a waste of my time responding to this garbage.

     "To answer your question... first off, I don't think that this is only a binary set of options. There are MANY more options than just "go to war to protect our addiction to oil" and "revert back to a technologically backward time before the advent of cheap energy". You aren't thinking 4th dimensionally. :D"

     4th dimension? Is that what you get from an bad acid trip? Is that where all those "MANY" options come from as well. And if there so many options available, you failed to mention just one.

     "We keep making deals with the devil because we as a country are dedicated to the profit motive. We are dedicated to making sure that, whatever the cost, our IMMEDIATE "needs" are met, nevermind the destruction we are causing, economically, ecologically, and most importantly diplomatically. We are NOT the city on the hill... unless of course you mean the city on the hill that is surrounded by shanties for as far as the eye can see. If you think that is right, and you think that supporting murderous regimes and overthrowing democratically elected regimes is a good idea... then prepare yourself for endless attacks of anger and retribution by the third world. Believe me, we can devise the most destructive bombs in the world... but eventually, when everyone hates our guts, and we have no friends, our choices really will be binary. Either accept that we are in the wrong and change our ways, or bomb the ENTIRE world back beyond the stone age. I just hope that in that situation, the world will be gracious enough to allow us to mend our ways, and not be as hateful and singleminded as we have been."

     Your communist side really shines through here. Its all about greed, profits and the root of all evils, money. Let me guess. Communism would be a better way to go but, I'm sure you wouldn't want to discuss all the "economic, ecologic and most importantly diplomatic destruction", it has caused. No, its just those greedy Americans. Its all their fault. Its all their fault for all the worlds woes.

     Jocheim, If you want to believe all this conspiracy crap, "go ahead" but, perhaps its, "You, my friend, who need to get your head out of the sand, your rectum, or whatever dark hole you have chosen to allow your head to reside."

     Posted by redstateman at 08/28/2005 @ 12:01pm

207. NO-NO, URMY:

     I seem to recall a couple of times OK posting as "dum, rich, konsurvative" (or some such) in which case perhaps he is a "man of leisure"

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 12:02pm

208. RE: "Tell a big enough lie often enough and people will begin to believe you"

     -Josef Goebels, (nazi propaganda minister)

     I must agree....after all, it has worked remarkably well for Dubya and comapny!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 12:06pm

209. It would seem that the majority of people who post here are chronically unemployable. While I enjoy reading the posts here, I am never able to engage in the conversations because the time between responses are too long. After about thirty minutes, I'm out of time... I have to go to work, or do laundry, take my son somewhere... where do any of you find the time to spend on this damn board? I think OKSG is a reactionary nitwit, but it seems hypocritical for some of you to pick on him for his time here...

     Posted by carpenters at 08/28/2005 @ 12:23pm

210. Carp...well, it *IS* the weekend

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 12:42pm

211. Johannesrolf, I apologize for the error. Although post war production is slightly less oil revenues are up from 9.8 billion in 2003 to 21.3 billion in 2005. Projections for the end of the decade should surpass the all time high of 3.7 million bbl/d in 1979 to over 4.0 million bbl/d. In any event, post Saddam production and revenue will eventually benefit the Iraqi people much better than before. As for the status of foreign influence of Iraqi oil, I offer the following. Please note the limited involvement of US oil companies and the involvement of other foreign oil interest.

     Status of Oil Development Deals with Foreign Companies Prior to the toppling of Iraq's Ba'athist regime, Iraq reportedly had negotiated several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimated that $38 billion worth of contracts were signed on new fields -- "greenfield" development -- with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals came to fruition (which Deutsche Bank believed was highly unlikely). Now, the legal status of these agreements is up in the air, increasing the uncertainty level for companies interested in doing business with Iraq. Besides legal issues, companies are also looking for a relatively stable security situation, a functioning government, and other conditions to be in place before they move heavily into the country. In February 2004, Iraqi Interim Trade and Investment Minister, Ali Allawi, announced that negotiations with potential investors in Iraq's upstream oil sector would be left for an elected, sovereign government, possibly delaying such deals until 2005 or 2006. In early June 2005, Iraq Oil Minister al-Uloum announced the formation of an inter-ministerial committee to review oil contracts signed under the Saddam Hussein government.

     As of May 2005, around 30 companies reportedly had signed MOUs (memoranda of understanding) with Iraq. The contracts mainly on EPC (engineering, procurement and construction). They generally cover the training of Iraqi staff (often for free), consulting work, and reservoir studies (also often for free). The MOUs are generally considered to be a way for oil companies to show their interest in future Iraq work, gather technical data, and to demonstrate their capabilities. In addition, the MOUs can help companies establish relationships that could be useful in the future, when Iraq is ready to start awarding major oil and gas development projects.

     Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, has a strong interest in Iraqi oil development. This includes a $3.7 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate Iraqi oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion barrel West Qurna field (located west of Basra near the Rumaila field). West Qurna is believed to have production potential of 800,000-1 million bbl/d. In mid-December 2002, the Iraqi Oil Ministry had announced that it was severing its contract with the Lukoil consortium on West Qurna due to "fail[ure] to comply" with contract stipulations. Specifically, the Iraqis had cited Lukoil's failure to invest a required $200 million over three years. Two other, smaller, stakes in West Qurna by Russian companies Zarubezhneft and Mashinoimport apparently were left intact. During the summer of 2004, Lukoil began training Iraqi oil specialists at facilities in western Siberia, an initiative reportedly aimed at saving Lukoil's West Qurna contract. The company also announced that it aimed to begin oil production from West Qurna in 2005 (although this seems highly unlikely).

     As of May 2005, Russia's Soyuzneftegaz reportedly was talking to several other companies about developing the 100,000-bbl/d Rafidain field, with work unlikely to begin before the end of the year. In May 2003, Russia's Tatneft set up a joint venture with Germany's MRH in order to win work in Iraq's oil sector. According to Tatneft's President, the company had been close to reaching a deal on exploring Block 9 in Iraq's Western Desert region prior to the war.

     In January 2005, Iraq awarded contracts to several companies (Anadarko, Dome, and Vitol) to evaluate the 2-billion-barrel Suba-Luhais in southern Iraq. Eventually, a development contract is to be signed, with the goal of increasing Suba-Luhais production from 50,000 bbl/d to 190,000 bbl/d.

     In December 2004, Iraq's State Company for Oil Projects (SCOP) awarded a $150 million contract -- the first post-Saddam era upstream deal -- to Turkey's AvrAsya Technology Engineering, for development of the Khurmala dome. Development of Khurmala is aimed at increasing Khurmala production from 35,000 bbl/d to 100,000 bbl/d, helping to compensate for declines in output at the mature Kirkuk field. In addtion to Khurmala, in April 2005, SCOP reportedly granted a contract to Canada's OGI Group to help develop the Hamrin field, located southwest of Kirkuk, and with a production potential of 60,000 bbl/d or higher. Work is scheduled to take 18 months to complete.

     Another large oilfield slated for development is Majnoon, discovered by Braspetro of Brazil in 1975, and containing reserves of 11-30 billion barrels of 28o-35o API oil. Majnoon is located 30 miles north of Basra on the Iranian border. In the 1990s, French company Elf Aquitaine (now merged with Total) negotiated on a possible $4 billion deal with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon. In 1999, however, TotalFinaElf declined to sign a 23-year production sharing agreement (PSA) with Iraq on Majnoon. Following this, the field reportedly was brought onstream (under a "national effort" program begun in 1999) in late 2003 at 50,000 bbl/d. Future development on Majnoon ultimately could lead to production of 450,000 bbl/d within two years or so at an estimated (according to Deutsche Bank) cost of $4 billion. Prior to the 2003 war, Majnoon reportedly had production capacity of 350,000 bbl/d.

     In early June 2003, China's National Petroleum Company (CNPC) refuted a comment by Thamir Ghadban that CNPC's contract on the 90,000-bbl/d al-Ahdab development was now "void by mutual agreement." CNPC agreed in 1997 to spend $1.3 billion on Al-Ahdab, located in southern Iraq, but no progress was made while sanctions remained in place.

     The 4.5-billion-barrel Halfaya field is the final large development in southern Iraq. Prior to the war, several companies (BHP, CNPC, Agip/ENI) reportedly had shown interest in Halfaya, which ultimately could yield 200,000-300,000 bbl/d in output at a possible cost of $2 billion. In January 2005, a consortium of Shell, BHP Billiton, and Tigris Petroleum signed a deal with Iraq's oil ministry to increase output from the Missan area, which included Halfayah. Smaller fields with under 2 billion barrels in reserves also had received interest from foreign oil companies. These fields included Nasiriya (Eni, Repsol), Tuba (ONGC, Sonatrach, Pertamina), Ratawi (Shell, Petronas, CanOxy), Gharaf (Mashinoimport, Rosneftegasexport), Amara (PetroVietnam), Noor (Syria), and more.

     In May 2003, Thamir Ghadban stated that three exploration agreements for blocks in Iraq's Western Desert were still valid. These included Indonesia's Pertamina on Block 3, Russia's Stroitransgas on Block 4, and Indian's Oil and Natural Gas Corp. for Block 8. In January 2003, Stroitransgas signed a $33.5 million contract for exploration on Block 4, and in July 2003, it indicated its interest in winning post-war business in Iraq. In September 2003, Pertamina announced that it planned to begin oil and gas exploration in Block 3, investing around $24 million over the next three years. The small Irish company, Petrel Resources, also has expressed interest in exploring and developing oil resources in western Iraq. In May 2004, Pertamina suspended its exploration activities in the Western Desert region due to security concerns.

     Historically, Iraqi production peaked in December 1979 at 3.7 million bbl/d, and then in July 1990, just prior to its invasion of Kuwait, at 3.5 million bbl/d. From 1991, when production crashed due to war, Iraqi oil output increased slowly, to 600,000 bbl/d in 1996. With Iraq's acceptance in late 1996 of U.N. Resolution 986, which allowed limited Iraqi oil exports in exchange for food and other supplies ("oil-for-food"), the country's oil output began increasing more rapidly, to 1.2 million bbl/d in 1997, 2.2 million bbl/d in 1998, and around 2.5 million bbl/d during 1999-2001. Iraqi monthly oil output increased in the last few months of 2002 and into early 2003, peaking at around 2.58 million bbl/d in January 2003, just before the war.

     As of May 2005, Iraqi production (net of reinjection) had reached perhaps 1.9 million bbl/d, with "gross" production (including reinjection, water cut, and "unaccounted for" oil due in part to problems with metering) of around 2.1 million bbl/d. Most analysts believe that there will be no major additions to Iraqi production capacity for 2-3 years, but that 4.0 million bbl/d is possible by the end of the decade.

     Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html#oil

     Posted by redstateman at 08/28/2005 @ 12:44pm

212. LTC, If that the best rebuttal you can give me, I'll take it as a compliment. Since it is the weekend and I've already burned up enough time on this site trying to mend the minds of the radical left to no avail, I think I'll try to enjoy what's left of the day.

     Later Folks!

     Posted by redstateman at 08/28/2005 @ 12:56pm

213. RED: "Have fun"....I aim to be succinct. [I blip on here between grading papers and reading research articles. I, as many, don't have quite that much time to devote to blogging. A few words here and there suffices.] Apparently you are going for sheer volume.

     Of course, I am glad you made such a clear presentation of facts on Iraqi oil. Now we on the left are more certain than ever that it was the true reason for this debacle / war. Thanks for doing our homework for us. we'll have to buy you a beer or something...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 1:14pm

214. HOT OFF THE WIRES....ATTENTION THREAD

     If you didn't see "Meet the Press" this morning, it was basically the title of this thread.

     Guests: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.); Gen. Wayne Downing (Ret.); Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.); & Gen. Montgomery Meigs (Ret.)

     Here's an excerpt between Russert and Gen. Wesley Clark (ret)

     MR. RUSSERT: Was it a mistake to go into Iraq?

     GEN. CLARK: Well, I think it was a strategic blunder. First it wasn't connected to the war on terror, at least not to the people that struck us. Secondly, it has proved a huge recruitment tool for al-Qaeda. It's a feed lot for terrorists who want to learn how to fight Americans. We put our American soldiers at risk there. And we're producing terrorists out there.

     see the entire transcript at: HERE [msnbc.msn.com]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 1:22pm

215. "But why do you equate prostitution as "bad". In the case murder, rape (or robbery for that matter) there are "victims" and often violence."

     If we assume that most prostitutes are female and most "Johns" are male, then do you call the wives of the "Johns" that get infected with Aids or other infectious diseases that the John gets infected with after hiring the prostitute, can one not argue they are victims?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 1:53pm

216. "SPORTBOY has time to waste here because the obedient little lady is watching the kids while DAD is on the WEB spreading the good word to lost liberal souls! .........

     Any body who has four kids and spends this much time - in a discussion with strangers that has a dubious purpose......... Well all I can say is, I feel sorry for his kids. Sportboy sounds like a pretty good guy, but I have to wonder what makes this sacrifice in time worth it.......as compared to spending it talking to someone who really matters - like maybe his kids or wife.........

     And , when does he work?

     This must be the modern version of my father hiding behind a newspaper and my mother telling us to not bother our father while he was reading, but that was only an hour each evening after he got home from work!"

     Hmmm so Christians can't make judgements based on religious beliefs but progressives can criticize Christians based on your judgement that I spend too much time on the internet.

     Interesting...

     The word hypocrite comes to mind...

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 1:57pm

217. OKSG - "If we assume that most prostitutes are female and most "Johns" are male, then do you call the wives of the "Johns" that get infected with Aids or other infectious diseases that the John gets infected with after hiring the prostitute, can one not argue they are victims?"

     I agree with that point. All the more reason prostitution should be legalized. If legalized, the prostitutes can be licensed and health inspections would be mandatory (how it is in Nevada). This would decrease transmission of diseases in prostitutes and thus to their customers other partners.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 08/28/2005 @ 3:00pm

218. oksportsguy:

     It's interesting that you don't respond to the DWI issue I brought up. If you think it's immoral to prostitute yourself, or rape someone, or murder someone (and I agree - all three are things no one should ever do), then what's to say you won't be doing those soon? I mean, it's all just one big slippery slope, right? Why should any of us trust you not to do those things, since you've been caught drinking and driving by the police (you're first time and only time, I'm sure), your logic would dictate that If you can abuse alcohol and get caught drinking and driving then what's to say you're not going to be raping someone next, or killing someone after that? You should be locked up, not necessarily to save you from yourself, but society from what you're inevitably going to do next. Again, just using your logic.

     Your argument against legalizing pot because it's a slippery slope to legalizing "bad behavior" should naturally include alcohol and cigarettes, by the way. Alcohol is mind altering and there's no question to the amount of damage it does to people's lives and to the country as a whole. A large percentage of petty crime, assaults, rapes, and murders take place while the assailant is legally intoxicated. Why aren't you advocating outlawing alcohol? Cigarettes cause a host of health problems and kill people "prematurely", no doubt a bad personal choice health-wise. Why aren't you against outlawing them?

     And you've talked about your kids on this message board a few times. We know you have four since you mentioned it in this thread. We also know that you talk to them about Jesus and avoiding sex until marriage, "personal responsibility, or "Do as Dad says, not as Dad does" (regarding alcohol consumption then getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle), joining the military, etc. Don't make it sound like I'm attacking your kids. I'm not. So get off the defensive when it comes to them. But what I am doing is wondering how someone who claims to know the one and only path to God, who acts sanctimonous on many issues, who purports to have strong family values and a great work ethic, can possibly spend as much time as you do on this website anonymous typing away for hours on end pretty much 7 days a week?

     No one said you can't make judgments based on religious beliefs, we just question the beliefs on certain issues. It is rather strange that someone who claims to work and have a large family finds as much time as you do to spend on the internet.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 3:15pm

219. "It's interesting that you don't respond to the DWI issue I brought up. If you think it's immoral to prostitute yourself, or rape someone, or murder someone (and I agree - all three are things no one should ever do), then what's to say you won't be doing those soon? I mean, it's all just one big slippery slope, right? Why should any of us trust you not to do those things, since you've been caught drinking and driving by the police (you're first time and only time, I'm sure), your logic would dictate that If you can abuse alcohol and get caught drinking and driving then what's to say you're not going to be raping someone next, or killing someone after that? You should be locked up, not necessarily to save you from yourself, but society from what you're inevitably going to do next. Again, just using your logic."

     personal responsibility,

     I wish I had taken my parents advice and never "tried" alcohol.

     it was a poor choice on my part, which led to a DWI.

     Again, I made my OWN point, that personal responsibility matters.

     Had I not made the choice to start drinking alcohol, I would have had zero chance to be arrested for a DWI.

     Thank you for bringing that up, so that I can use it to solidify my argument that personal responsibility will make a difference in what happens in ones life.

     Can we agree that if one NEVER drinks alcohol, one will NEVER be arrested for DWI?

     Again, thank you for bringing that up to further give credence to my argument.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 3:19pm

220. To all: Please lay off Todd

     This thread is putatively about Iraq, not theology.

     Furthermore, Todd seems to be making less of an effort proselytize us lost liberal souls than some others are making to proselytize him with ridicule.

     He has as much right his beliefs as you or I have to ours.

     Those who can't respect Todd's beliefs are probably wondering why the Evangelical vote goes to the Republicans. Don't look too hard for a reason.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/28/2005 @ 3:21pm

221. "No one said you can't make judgments based on religious beliefs, we just question the beliefs on certain issues. It is rather strange that someone who claims to work and have a large family finds as much time as you do to spend on the internet."

     You can think it's strange all you want, where you under some delusion that I actually care what you think of me or my life?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 3:21pm

222. Jack Rabbit,

     "Those who can't respect Todd's beliefs are probably wondering why the Evangelical vote goes to the Republicans. Don't look too hard for a reason."

     Very astute insight. And it is exactly the condescension from progressives (who usually vote democratic) who ridicule those with strong religious convictions that drives Evangelicals to the Republicans. You have picked up on the phenomena, I wonder if others really do.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 3:26pm

223. Oksportsguy:

     Was the time you got a DWI the only time you ever drove behind a wheel while legally intoxicated?

     Of course you care what other anonymous people think about you and your life, it's ludicrous of you to now pretend you don't. You're the one who always brings up "personal responsibility" and your religious beliefs into nearly every conversation on this website. No one who doesn't care about what other anonymous bloggers think would spend as much of your life as you do on this website.

     All of us on this website who bother to post, especially the regular or semi-regular posters, care what other anonymous poeple think, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

     If it's just a matter of personal responsibility, then it's not the government's right to outlaw marijuana and other narcotics. It's each person's right to indulge, or to pass (personal responsibility - thanks for making my argument for me oksportsguy). Rape and murder and not personal choices of the victim. People who use marijuana make a personal choice.

     You still didn't answer the question: since you think marijuana should be outlawed, why not alcohol? What's your reasoning to draw the line in the sand at alcohol?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 3:33pm

224. Bluetexan,

     "I agree with that point. All the more reason prostitution should be legalized. If legalized, the prostitutes can be licensed and health inspections would be mandatory (how it is in Nevada). This would decrease transmission of diseases in prostitutes and thus to their customers other partners."

     How's that going for you there in Texas anyway, in terms of legalizing prostitution...

     Like in Nevada?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 3:35pm

225. Jack Rabbit:

     We're not politicians on this website. You're point isn't astute, it's obvious. I'm not trying to get oksportsguy to vote for me, I'm disagreeing with points he's trying to make. And I'm doing it no less tactfully than oksportsguy is, by the way. There's two sides to even the flattest pancake.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 3:40pm

226. "All of us on this website who bother to post, especially the regular or semi-regular posters, care what other anonymous poeple think, otherwise we wouldn't be here."

     Your making assumptions, that's not fact.

     "If it's just a matter of personal responsibility, then it's not the government's right to outlaw marijuana and other narcotics."

     If you are so right, then why has the government outlawed mary jane and other narcotics?

     "You still didn't answer the question: since you think marijuana should be outlawed, why not alcohol? What's your reasoning to draw the line in the sand at alcohol?"

     I never said alcohol shouldn't be outlawed. However I don't think ANY thing like this should be outlawed. You can't legislate morality. What I'm saying is that people need to learn about poor choices and good choices in life, and with this hopefully their hearts will be changed and they won't WANT to engage in risky lifestyle behaviors. What I'm saying is that Americans need to wake up and realize that poor personal choices in life (like my drinking which led to a DWI) WILL result in bad things happening to you.

     alcohol can lead to alcoholism.

     doing drugs can lead to drug addiction.

     sex with prostitutes can lead to aids, HIV, and other diseases.

     It's all about risky behavior and personal choices.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 3:42pm

227. OKSG - "And it is exactly the condescension from progressives (who usually vote democratic) who ridicule those with strong religious convictions that drives Evangelicals to the Republicans. You have picked up on the phenomena, I wonder if others really do."

     As someone very familiar with the evangelical world, I'd like to comment. The condescension is a two way street. I've seen progressives belittle conservatives, but more often than not I see conservatives belittle progressives. I predict that in the not to distant future, mainstream and progressive Christians will rebuff the far right's nationalist religion and will convince progressives that all Christians aren't wacky (after all, I think the silent majority of Christians might actually be left-leaning...so it might not take that much convincing). However, the non-Christian progressives are going to have to take some responsibility and accept the progressive Christian without ridicule. I see a lot of animosity from some Nation posters towards any type of religion (see posts about ID, etc.). A lot of times that's out of past experiences, when they had been the subject of scorn and ridicule by someone they perceived as Christian and that is very unfortunate.

     I'm hoping by the next election (next year's mid-terms may be too soon), the progressive will be more receptive of the progressive and mainstream Christians. Perhaps then we can stop this runaway train we seem to be on. Hopefully it can be stopped before we reach the cliff's edge.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 08/28/2005 @ 3:47pm

228. Oksportsguy:

     I wrote: "All of us on this website who bother to post, especially the regular or semi-regular posters, care what other anonymous poeple think, otherwise we wouldn't be here."

     Then you wrote: "Your making assumptions, that's not fact"

     Give me one good reason why people would bother posting here on a regualar basis if they don't care what other posters think.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 3:47pm

229. OKSG - "If you are so right, then why has the government outlawed mary jane and other narcotics?"

     Well, I think for "mary jane" you can look to the tobacco lobby for that one. Can you imagine what would happen to the tobacco industry's profits if a drug that can be smoked (that doesn't have the lethal tar, and has been proven to have little to no long-term effects) were legalized. Tobacco profits...up in smoke! Ha ha, that was funny!

     You are still avoiding the questions, I pointed out a very good reason why prostitution should be legalized. And you haven't answered URMYGYRO's questions. Presumably, you don't have an logical answer.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 08/28/2005 @ 3:52pm

230. "Give me one good reason why people would bother posting here on a regualar basis if they don't care what other posters think."

     Because they want their message to be heard, regardless of whether others accept it or not.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 3:59pm

231. I wrote: "If it's just a matter of personal responsibility, then it's not the government's right to outlaw marijuana and other narcotics."

     then Oksportsguy wrote: "If you are so right, then why has the government outlawed mary jane and other narcotics?"

     Because many people across the country, such as yourself, would never vote for politicians who look at marijuana use (and other narcotic use) as a personal choice. You claim to espouse personal responsibility, but you (and many like you) want the government to control people's choices when it comes to drug use.

     You're all about the free market, oksportsguy, when it's convenient to you. But tax marijuana and other narcotics, like we tax alcohol and cigarettes: no can do in your book. If you truly believe "you can't legislate morality", then there's no reason to outlaw marijuana and narcotics.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 3:59pm

232. "You are still avoiding the questions, I pointed out a very good reason why prostitution should be legalized. And you haven't answered URMYGYRO's questions. Presumably, you don't have an logical answer."

     Then you're not reading, see my 3:42 post.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 4:00pm

233. "You claim to espouse personal responsibility, but you (and many like you) want the government to control people's choices when it comes to drug use."

     No I don't, I want PEOPLE to control People's choices when it comes to drug use.

     I want people to realize it's bad for them and not do it.

     I don't want the government legislating morality, look how well it worked in the 20's with prohibition, look how well it's working now with the war on drugs (sarcasm there) obviously it's not.

     You can't make man live a righteous life, you can only change their heart to where they will WANT to live a righteous life.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 4:04pm

234. I wrote:

     "Give me one good reason why people would bother posting here on a regualar basis if they don't care what other posters think."

     Oksportsguy replied:

     "Because they want their message to be heard, regardless of whether others accept it or not.

     You can care what others think without adopting their opinions as your own and without making other people adopt your opnions as their own. I never said the point of this website wasn't to get your message heard, regardless of whether others accept it or not.

     Another illogical inference oksportsguy (you are quite possibly the most notorious at making illogical inferences on this entire website).

     Wanting to get your message heard explicitly means that you care what other people think. You already know what you think and feel. You're here to let others know what you think and feel. If you didn't care what they thought, you wouldn't be letting them know what you think and feel.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 4:12pm

235. OKSG - Hmmm, looked at the 3:42 post, don't see much of an answer there. I did see you asked me about the legalization of prostitution here in Texas and then had some sort of "huh, Nevada?" comment. Well, in case you didn't know, in parts (maybe all?) of Nevada, prostitution is legal. Prostitutes are licensed and they are subject to AIDS and other STD tests. I only brought up prostitution because you had. Unfortunately, issues like prostitution are very low on the list in Texas. We can't even get a Republican led state government to agree on a school finance overall (which they pledged to do if elected; the debate has somehow shifted to property and franchise taxes...can you believe it...Republicans can't even agree on how to cut taxes...all they know is that they are BAD and have got to be reduced. But when they are actually given all the authority to do so, they just can't seem to follow through. Gee, isn't that interesting).

     So, I guess we'll all wait for coherent answers to the question put to you other than your "personal responsiblity" theme, which I think has been shot down several times by URMYGYRO.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 08/28/2005 @ 4:15pm

236. "So, I guess we'll all wait for coherent answers to the question put to you other than your "personal responsiblity" theme, which I think has been shot down several times by URMYGYRO."

     And keep shooting it down all you want, but while you are shooting it down, have you ever wondered what the percentage of drug addicts in prison are compared to the percentage of drug addicts that are successful CEO's of companies?

     Ya..

     Think about that one for a minute.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 4:18pm

237. oksporstguy:

     So, you'd be willing to vote for a politician who wants to legalize marijuana and other narcotics?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 4:18pm

238. "So, you'd be willing to vote for a politician who wants to legalize marijuana and other narcotics?"

     As long as they also supported some form of faith based initiative so that when legalized, the people could be taught that doing drugs WILL put you on the wrong path, and at some point, the statistics bear out that you will end up in jail, prison or worse, dead. So that hopefully although now legal, the person will still make a good life choice and not do it.

     personal choices, not bureaucratic laws (can't legislate morality)

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 4:21pm

239. oksporstguy:

     I wonder how many CEOs of companies have beena arrested for DWI?

     I wonder if you'll actually answer the question:

     Was the time you were arrested for DWI the only time you ever drove while legally intoxicated? That's the third time that question has been posed to you without you answering, if you were wondering for an example of a question you've been dodging.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 4:25pm

240. OKSG - "And keep shooting it down all you want, but while you are shooting it down, have you ever wondered what the percentage of drug addicts in prison are compared to the percentage of drug addicts that are successful CEO's of companies?"

     Are you kidding!? Do you think all "successful" CEO's are saints? Do you not think there are plenty of CEO's out there boozing it up, snorting lines, hitting the pipe? The difference between addicts in prison and those at the top of the buiness ladder is $$$$$$$. Rich, powerful CEOs have it and most folks in prison don't. To think that seemingly good, successful people don't do drugs or other harmful things is simply niave.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 08/28/2005 @ 4:28pm

241. "Was the time you were arrested for DWI the only time you ever drove while legally intoxicated? That's the third time that question has been posed to you without you answering, if you were wondering for an example of a question you've been dodging."

     Nope, before I was saved, I lead a not very good lifestyle involving partying, and alcohol.

     Then, thankfully someone cared enough to invite me to church and my life has turned around, and I couldn't be happier.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 4:30pm

242. 1. Of course you can "legislate morality". Why are prostitution, rape, and murder legal? Because they are considered immoral. Of course morality is legislated.

     2. What exactly do you mean by "faith based initiative" in your answer to my question about you supporting legalizing drugs? Are you suggesting if marijuana and other narcotics are legalized that all children have to go through a mandatory "faith based initiative" program? What happened to personal choices? There's no choice in making something mandatory.

     3. I know people who use marijuana regualarly and did not go down a "wrong path". One of my friends uses it every day, he's a successful and respected businessman, anoher uses So saying that it only on the weekends, he's a successful and respected attorney. So saying that "doing drugs WILL put you on the wrong path" is not necessarily true. It can be true, but not necessarily. Again, you want an absolute rule, when it's not that simple.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 4:33pm

243. URMYGYRO - I think you are beating a dead horse here. As much as you and I would like to convince OKSG that his logical is simply...illogical, doesn't look like its going to happen anytime soon. I guess he can't come to grips with his flip-flopping reasons for why some drugs should be legal and others not. Oh that flip-floppers...gotta love um.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 08/28/2005 @ 4:39pm

244. URMYGYRO - I think you are beating a dead horse here. As much as you and I would like to convince OKSG that his logical is simply...illogical, doesn't look like its going to happen anytime soon.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 08/28/2005 @ 4:40pm

245. Double Double Post Post!!! Sorry

     Posted by BlueTexan at 08/28/2005 @ 4:41pm

246. urmy,

     "Of course you can "legislate morality". Why are prostitution, rape, and murder legal? Because they are considered immoral. Of course morality is legislated."

     Ah..

     now we are getting somewhere, you said "because THEY are considered imooral"

     Now we are at the heart of the issue, who's definition of morality do we use?

     You see, I believe that abortion, prostitution and drugs are immoral.

     The world hasn't settled on an all encompassing definition for what is moral and what's not.

     I agree with you however that rape, and murder are immoral as well.

     And when you answered my question about why mary jane isn't legal, when you said "because people like you would never vote for a politician who wanted to make them legal", that right there is giving you an indication of what those people consider moral or immoral. In that case they consider mary jane immoral, and are voting their conscience on the issue.

     But I digress...

     Ultimately although politicians try, you just can't force people to be saved. You can only change their heart and hope that they will make the right choices.

     It's been fun bro,

     Gotta run now.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 4:41pm

247. See URMYGYRO, he just goes round and round until he gets so dizzy he has to get off the Circular Logic roller coaster. Good night OKSG, perhaps you are headed for Sunday evening church. Good luck, and ask the pastor about the morality of lying to start wars.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 08/28/2005 @ 4:45pm

248. Oksportsguy:

     If church works for you, and you feel you needed it to change a life you couldn't control and didn't enjoy, that's fine. If that works for you, then by all means it's great that that avenue was and still is open to you.

     But not everyone who parties and drinks alcohol (or uses marijuana or other narcotics) let's their lives spiral out of control. Many, many people are resonsible enough to let alcohol and recreational drugs be something used on the side for fun and/or relaxation, while living a responsible adult life, working and addding something positive to society.

     I'm a realist, I don't assume all people can use drugs in moderation, many people who use drugs and let it become a daily habit end out struggling to contribute to society and maintaining control over their lives. However, like you've argued literally hundreds of times on this website: it's about personal responsibility. By taking away the choice to enjoy, legally and responsibly, drugs like marijuana, the government isn't actually stopping the use of marijuana, it's just missing out on the tax money it could otherwise be gaining.

     Here's a topic not brought up yet: gambling. My state (Connecticut) has legalized gambling on Indian Reservations. Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are the two biggest casinos in the world. The state of Connecticut gets a huge tax benefit from legally allowing what many people consider a vice.

     Do you think gambling should be legal or illegal oksportsguy? If you think it should be illegal, then do you see yet again that you aren't really for personal responsibility, but for what you consider moral.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 4:49pm

249. oksportsguy:

     So you do admit that we legislate morality. Well, good to see you've come around to the truth. There are disagreements about what is moral and what is not.

     You didn't even attempt to answer the question about "faith based initiative" and you didn't even attempt to address your inconsistencies in saying you're for "personal responsibility" but you'd only allow legalizing marijuana if people were forced to go through a mandatory "faith based initiative" program.

     And, by the way, how perverse is that rationale (rhetorical question)? You'd allow people to use marijuana but force them to sit through a "faith based initiative" (most overused meaningless phrase in America today), hoping that someday their lives would be ruined by the marijuana (or other drug) use and they'd turn to the church for "salvation" as you did. What a perverse recruiting tool. That sounds eerily like the devil disguising himself as a snake and offering an apple from the tree of wisdom to Eve.

     Oksportsguy - you're not a bad person, but you truly need to work on making logical inferences. It's a good skill to have, especially considering you spend so much time trying to make them on this website. Gaining that skill will allow you to put together more sound arguments, opposed to the arguments you put forth now which are full of logical fallacies.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 4:59pm

250. I truly believe that people like Todd are jealous that a lot of other poeple can live their lives happily without going to church. Not all of us feel the need to be saved from out lives, as oksportsguy did, and does. That's why he's constantly is stating that only Jesus is the way to a peaceful, happy afterlife. If he's going to have to go to church to get and keep his life together (which he explicitly stated as such), then he's going to make us who don't have to go to church to keep our lives together feel guilty about our ability to cope and live and thrive without church.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 5:02pm

251. Regarding religion:

     One of my friends has a theory regarding the popularity of the Bible and Jesus. Look at the populatiry of comic books, tv shows based on comic books, and movies based on comic books, among children, especially young boys. Who doesn't know all about Superman, Batman, etc.

     Jesus is a comic book hero, with the comic book being the Bible. There are plenty of bad guys in the Bible, plenty of violence and sexuality, and the hero (Jesus) swoops in and saves the day.

     Jesus and the Bible are ways for adults to still be into comic books and superheroes, but with one long comic book and one larger-than-life superhero.

     Makes sense.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 5:30pm

252. "Oksportsguy - you're not a bad person, but you truly need to work on making logical inferences. It's a good skill to have, especially considering you spend so much time trying to make them on this website. Gaining that skill will allow you to put together more sound arguments, opposed to the arguments you put forth now which are full of logical fallacies."

     That's the risk one takes when one talks about non-tangible issues like the issue of personal responsibility, also known as "you reap what you sow".

     It's an argument taking into account things that can and probably will happen in the future, but being that they are future events, difficult if not impossible to make logical arguments for.

     I don't mind, I have heard the criticism many, many times before. It doesn't bother me one iota. It certainly won't change my mind on the importance of the issues or the importance of getting my message out.

     Love ya!

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 5:43pm

253. ALL

     I for one appreciate Todd's candor, even if I disagree with the perspectives many times. It is this very lack of insight into the prespective of people like Todd that eventually leads to most voting GOP (as has ben as much pointed out above.)

     re: Prostitution...also it has been noted that prostitution is considered "risky." Sure it is, but only because it IS illegal and not done in a healthful manner. (Medical checkups, always "safety gear" on hand, etc.) In other civilized nations where it is legal, these medical issues are no the problem. Illegality relegates this activity into gray areas where it becomes associated with OTHER illegal activities (drugs, criminals, etc.) often in back alleys, streetcorners, back seats, or seedy motels. If controlled it would be as clean as in the "privacy of your own home." This does not address moral ramification of the married folk "partaking", but that is between them and whatever they believe.

     As to drugs: well, for weed anyway it is much as the above. It leads to other things because those trafficking are doing so (often) in various illegal things. "Here, we're outta weed, but try some of this..." Control the weed, control the link to other drugs. [BTW BlueTex...it DOES have tar but only 1/3 of tobacco and no nicotine. What didja think that gooey resin would produce when burned?] It is certainly less harmful than either cigarettes or alcohol when used in moderation. The problem (also noted previous) is that abusers, much as an alcoholic would, become too dependent on it. Plus as I have noted previously, it makes doing nothing W-A-Y too interesting. (And yes, this is an experiential opinion....I inhaled. 'Nuff said?)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 6:01pm

254. Leftofcenter,

     "(And yes, this is an experiential opinion....I inhaled. 'Nuff said?)"

     Your a heathen, you realize you are going to hell since you inhaled but Bill won't because he didn't inhale right?

     (joking.. of course)

     = )

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 6:13pm

255. Todd

     If your version of hereafter is correct, I figure I've already gotten a seat reserved in first-class!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 6:18pm

256. "If your version of hereafter is correct, I figure I've already gotten a seat reserved in first-class!"

     I would never judge you personally bro. It really was just a joke, a play on the "inhaled" versus "ya I smoked, but never inhaled"

     LOL

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 6:36pm

257. I know Todd....S'alright

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 7:10pm

258. Oksportsguy:

     Your message about personal responsibility isn't yours alone. You don't have a patent or copyright on the idea of "personal responsibility". It's just as much mine or anyone's. I'm a personally and socially responsible person who doesn't need to rely on religion and/or Jesus to guide me to be a good person.

     You did, and still do. That's fine. You may think you're serving God or Jesus by being on the nation.com all day long, but you're just entertaining yourself. As am I and anyone else who spends a lot of time here. It's entertainment.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 7:22pm

259. Oksportsguy:

     You haven't attempted yet to explain how your faith based initiative would be implemented in accordance with making marijuana or other drugs legal.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 7:24pm

260. Also oksportsguy:

     If faith based initiatives are the answer, why don't you give more to your church? Why don't you and your fellow churchgoers simply give more to your church and then help your church administrate services you deem are worthy of your time and money?

     Why aren't you giving more?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 7:25pm

261. Tough questions for you oksportsguy, I don't expect you to answer why you find hours each day to be on this website but you don't back up your words with actions, like "faith based initiatives" will just take a life on their own, without those with "faith", like yourself, doing anything about it. Suppose you just expect the government to support your "faith based initiatives". That would be socialistic. Not good oksporstguy, not good. In fact, "faith based initiatives", even without government help, are socialistic.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 7:30pm

262. If the government money to help the poor was given to the churches for implementation at the neighborhood level everyone would benefit. There would be less waste, it would serve to strengthen communities, and it would help the poor.

     Posted by wiseowl at 08/28/2005 @ 9:52pm

263. George Bush understands this point. He seems to understand local issues and needs.

     Posted by wiseowl at 08/28/2005 @ 9:54pm

264. It is unfortunate that the war has distracted the country from so many of these important issues. Otherwise, the Bush agenda would be carried out more effectively.

     Posted by wiseowl at 08/28/2005 @ 9:57pm

265. "You haven't attempted yet to explain how your faith based initiative would be implemented in accordance with making marijuana or other drugs legal."

     You ask the question as if the process isn't already in place, when in fact it is. Our church as do many churches has a drug outreach to people with drug addictions. We bring them in, feed them help them get into a detox center and help them get their life back together.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 10:09pm

266. Yes, I agree with you Todd. People need to push aside whatever their feelings are about our president and do what is best for the community.

     Posted by wiseowl at 08/28/2005 @ 10:12pm

267. "Why aren't you giving more?"

     I give as much as I can, how much do you give to local charities or to the poor, or to drug rehab centers, since you asked the question of me?

     Another question, why do you have so much hostility towards people of Faith, particularly Christians?

     Why do I make you so angry?

     Do I threaten you?

     Just curious.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 10:12pm

268. Sounds like it might work. Will there be some mechanism to disqualify churches where the minister seduces young people, or advocates for wars, or runs a church that is essentially segrated by race?

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 10:17pm

269. Wiseowl

     Government money comes with strings attached.

     It would destroy the churches.

     If you take their money, then you belong to them.

     Separation of Church and State = Keep your "state" out of my church.

     (More or less of an anabaptist perspective)

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 10:23pm

270. You see, right away, anxioussoul wants to control the churches. Fund those which agree with a particular viewpoint. Not that I disagree with the list. But the list would get longer.

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 10:25pm

271. "Sounds like it might work. Will there be some mechanism to disqualify churches where the minister seduces young people, or advocates for wars, or runs a church that is essentially segrated by race?"

     I can't speak for the way that other churches run their drug outreach programs. Ours reaches out to anyone, but we most definitely try to not only get them free from the bondage of drugs but to also get them saved, i.e. minister to them and get them in Church.

     I don't know of any churches anywhere that intentionally segregate by race. There are certainly many predominantly white or black churches but only because of the areas the churches are in.

     Churches that are in predominately black neighborhoods simply because logistics will have more blacks

     Churches that are in predominately white neighborhoods simply because of logistics will have more whites.

     I also don't know of any churches that "advocate" for wars. I do know many churches that have church family members actively serving overseas and therefore the church prays for protection over those serving.

     Regarding "seducing young people"

     For Christians, God's Great Commission refers to reaching out to lost people and sharing the good news of the Gospel with them, so absolutely there will be lots of outreach particularly to those whose lives are messed up due to drugs.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 10:25pm

272. By the way, if this war has taught us anything, it is that people are basically wicked.

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 10:30pm

273. Remember the 10 Commandments! Seducing young people is a sin and the churches do not support that. Concerning wars, many wars are necessary to eventually bring safety and peace. Supporting war is not a sin. Concerning segregation or integration, that is not a sin, that has more to do with social behaviour and social engineering.

     Posted by wiseowl at 08/28/2005 @ 10:42pm

274. But you see my point.

     If you take their money, you have to do what they say.

     And, personally, I wouldn't want John Kerry, or Barney Frank, or any of their ilk having a say in how my church is run.

     In fact, I wouldn't want The President having a say, unless he was a member.

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 10:49pm

275. I think OKSPORTSGUY misunderstood the use of the word "seducing", which I understand to mean getting them to have sex with the people in charge of the church. (The catholic thing).

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 10:51pm

276. Good point JONB. If a church says that homosexuality is normal and encourages young people to marry same sex that is going to be a big problem for giving them money. I am also wondering about churches that say abortion is OK for rape and incest. The line must be drawn somewhere.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 10:53pm

277. oksporstguy: I'm not hostile, angry, or threatened.

     you come here to anonymously preach to people. I enjoy rebuffing your sanctimonious attitude toward social issues.

     I wrote:

     "You haven't attempted yet to explain how your faith based initiative would be implemented in accordance with making marijuana or other drugs legal."

     You replied: "You ask the question as if the process isn't already in place, when in fact it is. Our church as do many churches has a drug outreach to people with drug addictions. We bring them in, feed them help them get into a detox center and help them get their life back together."

     That didn't actually answer the question about making marijuana legal, and how you would require people to partake in "faith based initiatives" prior to making drugs legal.

     It's fine that your church gets involved in detox programs, but that still doesn't explain why marijuana shouldn't be legal, and why we shouldn't get the tax benefits from it becoming legal.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 10:59pm

278. I go away for the weekend and you have turned the topic into another faith/secular debate. Yawn.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/28/2005 @ 11:03pm

279. oksportsguy:

     Where do you draw the line at "I give as much as I can".

     1% of your income? 5%? 10% How much is enough, and if you have savings, why are you hoarding for yourself instead of spreading it around to the needy?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 11:03pm

280. Won't the marijuana increase the sexual seductions of young people? Seems like there was a movie (Reefer Madness) that warns about this danger.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 11:04pm

281. Some could argue that giving money to the poor makes them lazy. They will just sit on the sofa and watch soap operas all day.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 11:06pm

282. The line is:

     NO STATE INVOLVEMENT IN CHURCHES!

     True separation of Church and State.

     The churches did fine before, by the way.

     Here in Milwaukee, we have St Josephs, St. Mary's, Froedtert (Lutheran), and the list goes on.

     Chicago has even more. Baptist, Jewish, Catholic, Anglican, etc. Etc.

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 11:06pm

283. Right on URMYGYRO: If Todd was a good Christian he would be putting all his tornado experience to good use tonight by driving down to New Orleans to advise local officials on how to handle the high winds.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 11:08pm

284. Jesus wouldn't hoard his savings, he would give them away.

     Why aren't you following Jesus' lead oksportsguy?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 11:09pm

285. Giving money t omany of the poor is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

     (not all)

     Often they are poor because of self destructive and anti social behaviors, which are only increased when there is more money available to fund them.

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 11:09pm

286. Giving $2 to a crack addict is not going to help him at all.

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 11:10pm

287. Good Grief, why did you tell us you are from Milwaukee? That dang city has too many churches and too much beer.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 11:11pm

288. "Giving money to many of the poor is like pouring gasoline on a fire."

     In the same vein: giving tax breaks to the rich is like pouring gasoline on a fire. See the many examples of corporate greed as evidence.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 11:15pm

289. But the rich are good for the churches. They have more money to give. The poor are often a burden. What church wants it aisles filled with smelly homeless people.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 11:19pm

290. We have seats for them, actually.

     My observation is that churches that do what God wants never lack for money.

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 11:21pm

291. JONB: You mentioned Barney Frank earlier, do you think homosexuality is a sin?

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 11:23pm

292. BTW, I do recall reading somewhere that where prostitution is legalized, the illegal kind still goes on. For a variety of reasons. And since enforcement against it is significantly hampered by the social acceptance of "legal" prostitution, the bad aspects of it (and there are many) proceed unchecked.

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 11:23pm

293. Churches are social institutions. Like all social institutions, they're number one priority is self-preservation. I don't mind people who buy into (literally) and get involved with churches, but they should realize those who don't (such as myself) buy in tire of the constant Jesus and God messages that are pervasive in American political discourse.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 11:29pm

294. JonB is very homophobic anxioussoul, there's no question on that matter.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 11:31pm

295. As for the legalization of Marijuana, I am ambivalent.

     Same for legalizing prostitution.

     The only effective measure against these practices is the Gospel. And it is not uniformly effective.

     Though I recall, when Evangeline Booth held revivals in London, she had such success, that the bars were going out of business, because their customers stopped drinking.

     This is where the "Skull and Bones" flag came from, by the way. The tavern keepers got together and hired bands of thugs to break up her meetings. And they were the first to use that banner.

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 11:31pm

296. URMYGYRO: One thing that might help is too imagine that any person that constantly refers to God or Jesus in their political arguments probably has a great need to make a selfish, bigoted, or war-like positions appear noble or righteous. After, the children are listening.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 11:37pm

297. I am against legalizing prostitution, even though it can be argued that it's a consentual act between adults.

     The vast majority of prostitutes are female, and most prostitutes end up there because of dire economic conditions. No little girl grows up dreaming of being a prostitute.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 11:40pm

298. Well, that is one the values of churches. Trying to keep a lid on human sexuality since it causes so much anxiety for people.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 11:44pm

299. Some of my favorite and most vivid memories from high school are sexual. But if I had daughters I sure would not be telling them that. Might even tell them they can only go out with people from our church.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 11:48pm

300. anxioussoul:

     Not all people who are religious insert God and Jesus into most, if not every, political disucssion they enter. My parents are both very religious. I have plenty of political disucssions with them when religion isn't mentioned at all.

     Here's an interesting tidbit for you: they've been married for 31 years and go to church together every Sunday (and both are very involved in their church in more ways than just going on Sundays), but even those two people who are so alike can differ on big issues, for example: one believes Bush is wrong about the war and one believes he was right (the former being my father and the latter being my mother, surprised aren't you that the female supports the war and the male doesn't?!).

     My point is I'm not willing to buy into all religious people think lockstep. However, many of the religious people on this website who vote republican deliberately insert religion into every conversation. It's a tired tactic.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 11:49pm

301. Illegal prostititution rakes in tons of money every year. Strip clubs rake in tons of money every year. The porn industry rakes in a ton of money every year. Illegal drugs rake in tons of money every year.

     I wonder how many of those that are involved with and consume all of those things mentioned are republican? I wonder how many republicans think republicans are immmune to those problems and don't add to those problems. I wonder how many consider themselves religious? I wonder how many think they're going to heaven?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 11:56pm

302. It might be a regional issue. Down here in the south the churches are essentially segregated. The white churches overwhelmingly conservative, and black churches overwhelmingly liberal. But racial anxiety is a touchy issue, so better to make the differences seem like noble spiritual differences. As before, the kids are always listening. In other parts of the country there may be less preoccupation with race so the dynamics are different.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 11:58pm

303. Anxioussoul

     First, I'm not sure what you mean by "Homosexuality".

     I have a brother who finds that he is attracted to men, but not to women (sexually).

     That, in and of itself, is a situation.

     In that situation, he chooses not to have sex with either.

     You might say he is a "homosexual". He would be offended by the label.

     However, according to God's definition, he is not sinning in choosing to live as he does.

     To put it quite simply, sex other than between a man and his wife is sin. At times, I think sex between a man and his wife is sin also, because it violates the law of love. (When used to manipulate, or when performed against the will of one partner or the other)

     The reason I say that, is that God, who is the creator, and has every right to say what his creation should do, has made it pretty clear. It is his game, and he gets to make the rules. Plain and simple.

     So I would say, that a man having a sexual relationship with another man, as an example, is sin.

     If you look at the following list, you will see that the activities associated with "homosexuals" are included as serious sins, which by refusing to give up, people disqualify themself from the kingdom of God. But they are in the middle of the list.

     1 Corinthians 6:9-11

     9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

     10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

     11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

     The translation is the NIV, which I'm not fond of, but in this passage, at least it catches the point, which is clear in the original, that those who have no inheritance are those who do such things, not those who are such things. And there is hope. Even for the greedy, slanderers, and swindlers.

     I am sorry for going on at such great length. This forum isn't the best place for serious discussions of this sort.

     Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 11:59pm

304. Down here a lot of parents feel like they must espouse conservatism. Any expressed liberalism or sympathy to minorities might result in your son dressing and acting like Snoop Dog and your daughter dating black guys. That anxiety is a major political/religious driving force in the south.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/29/2005 @ 12:05am

305. As far as racism in the churches, where it exists, it is sin, plain and simple.

     And people need to repent.

     It is not as much of a problem up north. The church I was in before this, the pastor and 2/3 of the congregation were black.

     The one before that, the congregation was split about 50/50.

     But those were in Chicago.

     The one I am in now is near my house, and it is lily white. One black girl comes regularly, but there aren't many black people in the local community. And the ones that are mostly attend the pentecostal churches.

     Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 12:06am

306. JONB: No problem, you get to stay anonymous. Do you think your brother is attracted to men because of some genetic difference, or did your parents screw up in the upbringing, or what?

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/29/2005 @ 12:09am

307. There appear to be a lot of people who are only culturally christian. A friend of mine refers to them as "Churchians".

     I myself was a bit of a racist before I was saved, but I think if a person is truly saved, they have to give that up. It is simply inconsistant with the gospel.

     Children of the same father are all brothers and sisters. They are family.

     If y'all want, I can show you that straight from scripture.

     It is inescapable.

     Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 12:10am

308. Anxioussoul:

     JonB is offended by the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual". Apparently, the definitions; homosexual: being sexually attracted to the same sex, and heterosexual: being sexually attracted to the opposite sex, are too descriptive and honest for him to take.

     With family members like JonB, it's no wonder JonB's brother hates himself for his sexuality so much that he chooses not to have sex with other men, even though he's attracted to them.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/29/2005 @ 12:11am

309. JonB:

     quoting scripture to defend the virtue of scripture is circular logic. I'm right because I'm right doesn't prove your points in an adult discussion.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/29/2005 @ 12:16am

310. Well, I wouldnt worry too much about it. You have lots of company. And it could be even tougher. Years ago I discovered a co-worker had a bunch of books about people having sex with farm animals. I was astonished. Even now I feel some pity for him, yet I still laugh when I recall it.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/29/2005 @ 12:17am

311. Well, he is a brother, because he has accepted Jesus as his savior, and God is his father, and mine.

     He is an interesting guy.

     He maintains that there was a clear point in his life, where he went from being a normal guy sorta kid, kind of macho, actually, to being quite effeminate. You can see it in photos of him. He looks different.

     The best he can tell, is it coincides with two events which happened around the same time, when he was about 11 or 12 years old.

     The first was a very profound rejection of his father, because of his father rejecting him.

     The second was a rather unpleasant experience involving the older boys in the neighborhood, and a game of strip poker. I don't know the details.

     Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 12:18am

312. JonB...

     Like to know where you got your stats on prostitution etc. My own research seems to conflict. As to "This is where the "Skull and Bones" flag came from"...if you are referring to the "skull and crossbones" I assure you that you are mistaken as the literature traces that back truly to pirates in the 1500s.

     re: "Separation of Church and State = Keep your "state" out of my church."...seems like Dubya is doing the reverse....

     OK...its late. Think I'll toss back this short glass of Cabernet Franc and call it a night.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/29/2005 @ 12:21am

313. I am blessed with the sort of (appearance maybe) that gay guys don't find me at all attractive.

     It makes it easier to maintain friendships with them, because they don't seem to get confused.

     Women on the other hand, always seem to get romantic ideas. So with them, one needs to be careful.

     Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 12:22am

314. That question about the cause of homosexuality always seem to halt conversations. Since gay marriage is supposed to be an important national issue why did the Mary Cheney topic die before they discussed the key question. Were Dick and Lynn lousy parents? was it a gene? whose gene was it wrt to the parents? or was it simply the devil at work?

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/29/2005 @ 12:23am

315. LEFTOFCENTER

     I agree with you, The President is on the wrong track with government support of "faith based initiatives."

     I'd be curious to see what you have on the skull and crossbones. I could be wrong.

     Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 12:25am

316. I am inclined to go with devil. But it might have been caused by a liberal teacher, or maybe Hollywood.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/29/2005 @ 12:26am

317. JonB wrote (describing himself):

     "I am blessed with the sort of (appearance maybe) that gay guys don't find me at all attractive.

     It makes it easier to maintain friendships with them, because they don't seem to get confused.

     Women on the other hand, always seem to get romantic ideas. So with them, one needs to be careful."

     Someone thinks his physical appearance is irrersistable to all, except gay men, of course. Vanity, thy name is JonB.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/29/2005 @ 12:30am

318. Leftofcenter:

     Don't hold your breath waiting for JonB to profer his reasoning for the existence of homosexuality. It may open him up to inconsistencies.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/29/2005 @ 12:31am

319. addendum:

     he may quote scripture to explain homosexuality is wrong, and then simply say "humans are prone to sin" or some general non-explanation.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/29/2005 @ 12:32am

320. Anxioussoul

     I will give you my opinion, based on my own observations.

     (I agree, by the way, the Cheney situation is politically interesting. The problem was, the left was standing in the wrong place to raise the question, and the right didn't care what sort of parents the cheneys were, or anything else about their personal lives. The character issue is for the OTHER guy)

     There is no one cause which determines sexual orientation.

     There are quite a number of factors which cause a person to be attracted to the same sex romantically and sexually.

     These include:

     Bad parenting. Especially a bad relationship with the same sex parent, resulting in a severe rejection.

     Early sexual experiences. A surprising number of people who are in this situation have very abnormal first sexual experiences, often with an adult, or worse a parent. Sometimes group sexual activities with the same sex.

     A family history of immoral (from a biblical perspective) sexual practices, incest, illegitimacy, adultery, fornication.

     Being the youngest son in a Roman Catholic family. (don't ask me why)

     Opportunity. Lots of women become lesbians in prison, as it is the only game in town. (I did prison ministry for a while, and the womens prisons were tough, because religious services were the only place some of these couples could meet up. So it was a tough crowd)

     Similarly, a lot of truck drivers get into same sex relationships, beginning with oral sex, because it is quick and easy.

     Pornography. Even "straight" pornography. It seems to have a very strong influence.

     Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 12:45am

321. As far as the devil is concerned, yes.

     But he can't make anybody do anything.

     Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 12:46am

322. It is time for me to go to sleep.

     Have a good night!

     Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 12:49am

323. Leftocenter,

     "Of course, I am glad you made such a clear presentation of facts on Iraqi oil. Now we on the left are more certain than ever that it was the true reason for this debacle / war. Thanks for doing our homework for us. we'll have to buy you a beer or something..." Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 08/28/2005 @ 1:14pm

     I wouldn't go dancing in the street just yet. The list of oil companies that have post war contracts to develope oil fields in Iraq, are ALL foreign owned. Not one of them is an American owned company. Not even Halliburton. With that being said, I'm sure someone will try to make an American connection somewhere in there but, a friend of a friend, of your aunt's cousin twice removed isn't going to cut it!

     List of oil companies owners with post war contracts in Iraq: 1.) Shell - Dutch 2.) AvrAsya - Turkey 3.) Braspetro - Brasil 4.) Billito - Austrailia 5.) Tigris - Australia 6.) Eni - Italy 7.) Repsol - Spain 8.) ONGC - India 9.) Sonatech - BVI, (British Virgin Islands) 10.) Pertamina - Indonesia 11.) Pertronas - Malaysia 12.) CanOxy - Canada 13.) Mashinoimport - Russia 14.) Rosneftegasexport - Russia 15.) PetroVietnam - Vietnam 16.) ? - Syrian

     Do I still get that beer?.........

     Posted by redstateman at 08/29/2005 @ 12:59am

324. RED

     As last I recall, we *have* Shell stations in the US and the majority of the list are US friendly interests (some arguably). I presume that the residual Iraq oil temperment in a perfect post-BushWar world will BE more US friendly. It is more about preserving a west-friendly oil climate than actually conquering oil-producing countries. That is assuming of course that an of those contracts still mean anything afterwards...

     So sure, what are ya drinking?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/29/2005 @ 10:20am

325. JonB A few "jolley Roger" links

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

     http://www.inkyfingers.com/pyrates/flags/

     http://www.cindyvallar.com/flags.html

     As to the whole "roots of gay-i-tude" and Mary Cheney thing...hmmmm. I have had gay friends and as far as I know there was no "bad parenting" or other deleterioous influences which "gay-i-fied" them. In fact, if the reasons noted were responsible I suppose I would be gay. Fornication (unmarried sex) makes one gay? How is that...if anything it might lead to other "loose behaviors" but I ain't seeing the connect.

     Methinks thou perspective on such things to be a might antiquated, forsooth!

     As to the M Cheney thing....(by anxioussoul I think)...well, of course they wanted that to quite down. For the reasons noted, it would reflect badly no matter what. Better to hush up and never againsay the "g" word.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/29/2005 @ 10:39am

326. Leftofcenter

     I was simply listing things I have observed, which are clearly in no case sufficient, of themselves.

     Sort of like risk factors for heart disease.

     In the end, it all comes down to the will.

     Way off topic, anyway.

     Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 1:04pm

327. I know this is a bit late, but... the reason rape and murder are outlawed has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with taking someone's rights to "life, liberty & property" & "the pursuit of happiness", "without due process of the law". It's about one man's right to not have his rights taken away by another. If I choose to drink alchohol, use mind altering drugs, not wear my seatbelt in a car (that's illegal in NJ) or pay a prostitute for "services rendered" (as one person put here,not that I ever would,)who have have I hurt? Whose rights have I taken away? NOBODY's. No government has the right to legislate morality, even though they often do.

     Posted by thejman at 08/29/2005 @ 1:20pm

328. Imperialism is now neo-imperialism. It is the imperialism of the western world. It may well be true that the United States is not always the direct beneficiary of the imperialism it helps maintain, but it plays the role of an imperialist agent. International capital is attempting to establish an internationalism of moneylenders. It includes its own, those of other countries, and the comprador classes of the host country. It is still imperialism. You can count nickels all you want, comrade economists. The practice may be neo- but it is still imperialism. Parasitic economic growth of the west which is used to drain the resources of the poorer countries of the world. Call it whatever else you like. Calling a sheep's tail a leg does not make it any less a tail, as Lincoln said.

     As for the so-called constitution of Iraq, you'll have noticed this morning, I hope, that the present draft upholds Islam as the foundation of the law. Is that the democracy this stupid war is going to uphold? Some of you true believers out there need to wake the hell up. Phony lefties or phony righties, you all make the rest of us gag. We are tired of your assumption that it is only the west that will defend democracy in this world. Obviously western ideas have much to contribute, but the most important idea of all out of the west, socialism, or the reality that democracy is only possible once people are no longer run around by their production and consumption cycles, is blissfully neglected by your great liberators. But, like the lady said, from now on, it's either socialism or barbarism. It is unfortunate so many of you have chosen to line up with the barbarians.---Jayarjunyah

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 08/29/2005 @ 1:52pm

329. jayarjunyah

     THANKYOU!!! As I scrolled down this ever growing list of grossly off-topic radical-right-wing faith based BULLSHIT, I had almost decided to never again bother reading Nation blogs.

     The Nation is a left wing journal. I do not peruse the blogs here to read right wing discussions. I come here hoping to see discussions pertinent to the idealologies of the left. I come here to see the left discuss the tactics WE will use to promote the policies and change WE wish to enact. I come here to see a lively debate between the status quo 'vote for Kerry' type liberal and the radical 'smash the state' type liberal. I am disgusted every time I see the discussion being pulled to the right by radical right idealogues like redstatesman, et al. they only post here because the conservative blogs do not allow anyone to post.

     Back to your post, jayar. The draft constitution is of course proof that democracy at the barrel of a gun is no democracy at all, and further proof that democracy building was never the point of this imperialist exercise in the first place. The Iraqis can write whatever they want. Two months from now the constitution will be found to be wanting by the imperialists and used as further justification for maintaining our colonial presence, and for more draconian acts both in Iraq and the US.

     In a classic case of inintended consequences, The Iranians are very pleased with the draft;

     Iran pleased [iranfocus.com]

     Please, everyone... do not get bogged down discussing right-wing idealogy on this blog. Just ignore the aludras and OKSG's. Let them find or establish their own blogs for discussions of the church and other concerns.

     Posted by carpenters at 08/29/2005 @ 3:40pm

330. CARPENTERS, To be fair OKSG is frequently queried about his beliefs by lefties on this blog, and should not be faulted for anwering those questions nor for explaining the rationale behind is politics. That said, I will now point out that I see very few posts that offer the kinds of tactical innovations that you wish to discuss. It is a good point you raise: Once we know what we want we need to figure out how to get it. Perhaps you can set the example and bust one out on us?

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/29/2005 @ 4:24pm

331. CARPENTERS:

     No, if you read closely, JONB has figured out why people are gay. There is much for us to learn. LOL!

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/29/2005 @ 4:47pm

332. Carpenters,

     " The Nation is a left wing journal. I do not peruse the blogs here to read right wing discussions. I come here hoping to see discussions pertinent to the idealologies of the left. I come here to see the left discuss the tactics WE will use to promote the policies and change WE wish to enact. I come here to see a lively debate between the status quo 'vote for Kerry' type liberal and the radical 'smash the state' type liberal. I am disgusted every time I see the discussion being pulled to the right by radical right idealogues like redstatesman, et al. they only post here because the conservative blogs do not allow anyone to post. "

     Let's address this…

     Number one, there are many conservative blogs that allow conservatives to post. Some of us however get tired of preaching to the choir. I would rather debate with those that oppose my views for the most part. It's more fun, challenging and much less boring than reading the row after row after row of conservative blogs which are dominated by Bushites and Limbites (people who listen to Rush only), who post all the same stuff.. Liberals are pansies, they are all traitors like Jane Fonda, they are the party of the evil Michael Moore's of the world, they are just mad because Bush won fair and square AGAIN, yada yada yada.

     Number two and more importantly, I think you just identified the primary problem of the left when you said "I come here to see a lively debate between the status quo 'vote for Kerry' type liberal and the radical 'smash the state' type liberal. I am disgusted every time I see the discussion being pulled to the right by radical right idealogues like redstatesman, et al"

     Maybe the problem of the left (which has manifested itself in your accurate assessment of the left leaning The Nation blog containing a lot of posts addressing issues from the conservatives, and those same said issues being addressed by progressives) is that you really don't have any of your own platforms, or issues to talk about, OR you simply don't have any good strategies TO talk about that in terms of your issues and platforms that would make anything in better than what is going on in the world specifically in terms of Iraq. We all know the left thinks Bush was wrong for going in, the WMD argument was bogus.. yada yada. What we don't hear from the left is a way to fix it. Only continued criticism of Bush and the right.

     Just my two cents worth…

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/29/2005 @ 4:52pm

333. Maybe undergrad history major Bush was awake the day they discussed Shay's Rebellion of 1786-87 while we were governed by the Articles of Confederation. Rich merchants were doing quite well in the chaos which existed absent a strong central government, but not so the farmers of Massachusetts. Captain Daniel Shays judged that the courts were an instrument of repression, so with 2000 or so insurgents he shut down the Massachusetts Courts and attacked the Federal Arsenal before militia put down the rebellion. If the like occurred today, few would characterize it as "rowdy demonstrations and loud dissents," nor is it accurate to call it " relative calm as factions debated......"

     Posted by drjazz1950 at 08/29/2005 @ 4:58pm

334. OKSG, You must not be "listening." I think the Left offers suggestions quite frequently. If you know of an issue in which they do not, I will be happy to give you my own suggestions - just name the problem and I will tell you how to fix it. I love to pontificate and lecture!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/29/2005 @ 5:24pm

335. Physics,

     "OKSG, You must not be "listening." I think the Left offers suggestions quite frequently. "

     Hmm, well I guess perception is ones reality. I just don't recall hearing many ideas on stopping terrorists from blowing themselves up in Israel, London and the USA, just a lot of bashing Bush for the illegal war on terror etc.

     If progressives don't like the war or the way Bush is handling it, that's certainly justifiable thinking. But the next part is what should we do about it?

     Learning about why terrorists feel they need to attack us isn't really an idea in terms of making them stop now.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/29/2005 @ 5:44pm

336. I love physics,

     Here is one question I would like to see discussed more often: Is voting in '06 or '08 going to make any difference vis a vis Iraq? I often read posts, here and elsewhere, claiming that more Dems in the House or Senate will make a difference. The problem with this arguement as I see it is that there are no anti-war Democrat candidates. To the contrary, the biggest hawks in the Senate are the presumptive presidential front-runners in '08 ; Clinton and Biden. So how do anti-war progressives, like myself, gain traction here? Talk among yourselves, I'm verklempt

     Posted by carpenters at 08/29/2005 @ 7:36pm

337. Leftocenter,

     "As last I recall, we *have* Shell stations in the US and the majority of the list are US friendly interests (some arguably). I presume that the residual Iraq oil temperment in a perfect post-BushWar world will BE more US friendly. It is more about preserving a west-friendly oil climate than actually conquering oil-producing countries. That is assuming of course that an of those contracts still mean anything afterwards..."

     LTC, That sounds allot like, "a friend of a friend, of your aunt's cousin twice removed," to me. Besides, I thought the rest of the world hates us. I think its a stretch to try and tie US friendly interest to Imperialism, Halliburton, blood for oil, and all the other rhetoric I've heard. That's the point I was trying to make. I think I made a good argument but I'm sure some will disagree. We do have Shell stations here but, we also have McDonalds in Suadi Arabia. Its just a global economy. We get oil, they get Big Mac's. Whats wrong with that? LOl! Just kidding but anyway, I do like this beer made in Belgium. I forget the name but its made by monks from an abby. I don't drink very often but its Awesome! I'll try to get the name to you. Thanks! I'm beat for now so I'll talk to you later!

     Posted by redstateman at 08/29/2005 @ 10:24pm

338. Carpenters,

     "I come here to see the left discuss the tactics WE will use to promote the policies and change WE wish to enact."

     How can you promote your policies and changes without having to defend them? Now I know why you libs can't win elections. When your done "smashing states" maybe we can talk about it.

     Posted by redstateman at 08/29/2005 @ 10:38pm