FAITH? Jerry Falwell was not about faith. Jerry Falwell was about hate. I don't celebrate his death, I don't jump up and down cheering for ANY human being's death; but I certainly don't mourn him. I feel bad for the pain his family must be feeling now, but the man himself was vile.Comment Posted By Kathy On 15.05.2007 @ 22:31
What exactly do you think al-Qaeda has been doing these last few months exploding car bombs and suicide bombs in Shia markets, Shia shrines, Shia funerals, etc. and then turning around and doing the same thing to the Sunnis?
They want chaos. They need chaos. They have made no secret of the fact that once we leave, they wish to turn Iraq into the Somalia of the Middle East, giving them a safe haven from which to strike western interests.
Your first para is unarguably correct.
Your second para is correct as far as it goes, but it omits an important truth: that the chaos you describe actually suits U.S. (perceived) interests as well. Look at how the State Department Acting Counterterrorism Coordinator responded a couple of days ago to a reporter's question about the vastly increased levels of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed by State's annual report on global terrorism. The reporter asked if, given the increase in terrorist-related violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war in Iraq has been good for anti-terrorism efforts in general. Urbancic said yes! He said, essentially, it's a good thing there's so much more terrorist violence in Iraq, but that's keeping it from going elsewhere -- like here. Some right-wing bloggers (like Newbusters) have echoed this sentiment approvingly. Newsbusters actually took the MSM to task for not stressing the "good" news that Iraq is now Terrorism Central, and for not admitting that Pres. Bush's "strategy" worked! And clearly -- clearly, Rick -- these commentators do NOT see the incredibly malevolent assumption at the heart of their arguments.
I'm not saying that all war supporters feel this way, but it's a significant thread in support for the war, especially in official administration circles, and I think it has to be acknowledged. Not just for the obvious moral reasons, but also because it completely alters the logic for staying or leaving in Iraq. If being there is provokig the violence, or making it worse, or at best not allowing Iraqis to resolve the issues underlying it, then it's in the (perceived) best interests of the warmakers to stay in Iraq. Not because our presence is keeping the violence from getting worse, but because our presence is keeping the violence from lessening.Comment Posted By Kathy On 2.05.2007 @ 12:48
Very good post, Rick. Thank you.Comment Posted By Kathy On 29.04.2007 @ 12:34
"The Soviet Union lost 20 million people in World War II because they chose to help Adolf Hitler start the war in the first place."
I don't understand your logic here. In what way did Stalin's initial support for Hitler "cause" over 20 million people to die in the Soviet Union? Also, you seem to be saying that the 20 million (according to Wikipedia, over 23 million, actually) who died in the Soviet Union all chose to help Hitler. I must be missing something, because I can't believe you could really be saying that.Comment Posted By Kathy On 29.01.2007 @ 17:06
Rick, this post is awesome, as were the others you've beem writing on this issue.
Well done.Comment Posted By Kathy On 4.01.2007 @ 00:05
"If youâ€™ve been paying attention to whatâ€™s happening, Ali Hakim of the SCIRI is in the process of building an alternate governing coalition â€“ WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE FRICKING IRAQI CONSTITUTION - that would replace Maliki and eliminate the influence of al-Sadr on the government.
So much for democracy? Damn straight, stupid."
Whoa, looks like I hit a nerve. Sorry about that.
By the way, you missed your best comeback to Christy's post about the loss of American influence. You should have told her what you just told me, about Ali Hakim and SCIRI. Clearly, America's influence is just as compelling as ever.Comment Posted By Kathy On 19.12.2006 @ 20:58
"Nouri al-Maliki has got to go."
George W. Bush has got to go, too -- but aren't we lucky that no other country in the world has the power to actually make him go?
So much for democracy, eh?Comment Posted By Kathy On 19.12.2006 @ 14:30
"...those who see anti-Americanism as some kind of gigantic game where tweaking the tail of the lion is considered great sport..."
I'm sure you can understand, though, why most people would not have much liking or trust for a lion -- especially if it was running around hurting and killing people without restraint.
"Blaming America for oneâ€™s troubles is so much easier than assigning fault for the poverty, oppression, and murderous, thuggish, brutish government most people in the world live under."
Many of which thuggish, brutish governments the United States either supports now or has supported in the past.
And btw, "it's" with an apostrophe is a contraction for "it is." The possessive is spelled "its" -- no apostrophe. Hence, "Its charter is honored in the breach"; "Its budget is a shambles"; "Its departments a mishmash..."Comment Posted By Kathy On 4.12.2006 @ 18:20
Well, then, we'll have fun debating.:)
It's win-win. :)Comment Posted By Kathy On 1.12.2006 @ 14:33
Mark H said:
"I think, Kathy, if you read and take time to absorb what B.Poster is conveying in response to your well-expressed thoughts, that youâ€™ll eventually come to understand why weâ€™re good and theyâ€™re bad; why war is not wanted but is often necessary; why no one wants war, but that war wants you."
Well, if you will permit me to turn the tables: I think that if you and B. Poster read and take the time to absorb what I am conveying in response to the thoughts that have been equally well-expressed by both of you, you'll eventually come to understand that "good" and "bad" are verbs, not nouns. (Yes, I know they are actually both adjectives, but I'm speaking figuratively.)
"No one wants war but war is sometimes necessary" (although I note here that "often" has replaced "sometimes," which is the word I have always seen before) is an aphorism that is often used by people who don't have to experience war directly. It's so easy to say that war is "unwanted" but "necessary" when the bombs are not falling on you, and the death squads and suicide bombings are not terrorizing your family and friends. I wonder if you would feel the same way about war if you were living in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or even Europe, where the memory of the last century's wars are still all too recent.
I can agree that war is sometimes inevitable, but it's never necessary; and it's always the worst solution possible. War happens when all the better solutions have either failed, or failed to be tried -- because warmongers and war profiteers are real.
"Martin Luther King was a staunch supporter of Israel. He would be appalled at the way Israel has been treated within the UN and elsewhere. I suspect he would be the first to condemn Arab naked aggression against the state of Israel. I also think that he would be horrified at Americaâ€™s wholesale departing from a Christian world view."
I do have a response to that; but given that I hate putting thoughts and ideas about contemporary issues in the mouths of dead heroes who died before those issues developed, I won't go there.
By the way, I am familiar with worldnetdaily.com and have indeed read some of the articles there. I'm very surprised that you recommend it, though, since you are such a critic of slanted news reporting. :)
"For the record, I think this president should be impeached."
LOL, we've found something we can agree on! I've intentionally omitted your next sentence, though, because if I included it, we would be disagreeing again! :))
"I must agree with Mark that your thoughts are well expressed. We just have strong disagreeements but you seem to be a thoughtful person. It is a pleasure discussing world events with you."
The feeling is mutual. There; we found something else we can agree on. :)Comment Posted By Kathy On 30.11.2006 @ 12:28