Friday, December 22, 2006

A Personal Exploration of Service with Views on Iraq

Well, this is going to be a lengthy section, hopefully with some cumulative value. At the conclusion I will discuss perceptions and military service in a personal way. Including some colorful history of my youth, for better or worse. Take it with a grain of salt, as my teen years were not full of exemplary character development. It begins with number one piece of mail from my esteemed sparring partner.
The Prez wants guys to volunteer for the Army!! Says he needs 20,000, or maybe 25,000, or was it 35,000..... well, some folks are saying 70,000 more troops to get 'Victory' in Iraq. I'll help get the USS Missouri ready for the surrender ceremony and YOU can rush right down and join the Marines! Hell, I mean, they're taking guys clear up to age 42.... I mean, gee, don't you want to fight for your country??? Red-blooded, patriotic, god-fearing guys ready to DIE for America? or or maybe just a disabling wound arm or leg....though head wounds seem more popular these days.... Maybe those who vote for war should have to go and fight it?

My response was mild as it is the Christmas Season of love and happiness.
I would love to serve in some capacity, yet they don't want oceanographers right now.... If Al Qaida gets a few submarines, maybe the navy's blue water budget will increase... However, I think we have a all volunteer force right now, and recruiting seems to be going well. I notice that our armed forces are better educated than the average American, and come from households of higher than average income.

Heritage Foundation Report on the Military

Gee, what happened there? I thought only idiots and the poor joined up, according to you leftists.

Who are you so desperate to surrender too? Idiotic. Did you know that we were taking the heaviest casualties in WW2 at the end? Your peacenik philosophy wouldn't have even gotten us to '44, let alone success. I bet the press of today transplanted to that generation would have sluffed off Pearl Harbor by '44 and ran around calling for peace "...'cause we will never take the Japanese mainland and too many people have died." In fact, they probably would have figured out that we really already lost the war completely by the Battle of Midway. As it stands in this day and age, they have confused dissent with disloyalty, leading to a Anti-American mindset. Stupid and self destructive.

As to serving, it would be great. I know doctors who have gone in, and gotten pretty good deals, loans payed off, competing pay grades. But I would literally have to declare bankruptcy if I joined the Marines! It would be fun to be a analyst as well, but I haven't any of the languages or politics in my CV. So that leaves DOD stuff, which may happen anyhow, but it isn't exactly combat. Later on, if given the opportunity, I could teach at Monterrey (NPGS), that would be interesting. But again, they aren't very interested in blue water science right now. The real threat is all in coastal stuff. Now, if the Chinese keep growing, maybe they could field some boomers, then the money will come back. Anyhow, if we were in dire straights I wouldn't have any problem hitching up, but I don't think the situation is as reported by your ilk. And to continually harp on those who "voted for the war", is just a sign of your sides failure to provide any solutions at all. Total ignorance. Total politics. Total BS.

Ok, so maybe it was slightly provocative, but you must admit, very low on the 'inflamimeter' (a device yet to be invented). Reading my response again now, I do sense a bit of duckedness in the explanation of why I am not running down to the recruiter, but they have other standards besides those stated. Things like age and fitness... Anyhow, here is the next bit in the saga:
A most amazing response!
I can see the lads at Lexington and Concord: 'Well, offer me a good deal. The GI bill, pay off my loans, give me a commission" How about, I'm here to defend Liberty and Freedom! You want a reward to defend your country?! You sound like a corporation that wants war time profits! If you REALLY believe in the war against Iraq, then join up and FIGHT! Become a rifleman in a USMC platoon. Get out on the front line and take the risks along with the rest of the guys. If, on the other hand, all this is baloney; the cause just doesn't mean that much; you're willing to let 'someone else' do the fighting, bleeding and dieing, well, that's a different story ain't it. Thomas Paine was right, The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this time of crisis shirk from the service of his county....

Ah, the accusation of surrender. Thought we had settled that yesterday with the Edward R. Murrow quote. You people always equate dissent with disloyalty and disagreement with surrender. It ain't so. I argue that the dissenters, as we were in Vietnam, the truer patriots because we are trying to save our country from making a huge mistake. We were LIED to about Iraq. No WMD's, no threats, no connection to September 11, and no terrorists (until WE bought them there). But George and Dick keep trying to make the link that isn't there. So, why ARE we in Iraq? The answer to that has changed several times over the past four years. George just keeps making things up as he goes along, lie after lie after lie. You people will have to face the facts at some point; 80% of the rest of us already have. There is NO reason to be in Iraq. George and his cronies lied to us and created a monstrous mess, and every day and everything he does just makes it worse. This is not a glorious cause leading us to victory over those who have attacked us. It is a lie. From beginning to end, a lie. Saddam had no WMD's, was not a threat, had no nuclear weapons program, was not making chemicals or biological weapons, did not sponsor 9/11, did not train terrorists etc etc etc. We still don't REALLY KNOW why George lead us into this war, but we do know that it has nothing to do with 'terrorism'. The war on terror, such as that is, is being lost in Afghanistan and across the world because the US is not meaningfully engaged in it.

And, you don't have to worry about how I'm reporting the war. Read the Commission report, authored by Republicans. Read the briefings from the Pentagon, authored by the generals that are there! Take a look at the actual events that are taking place in Iraq; what's the trend in civilian deaths? What's the trend in US military dead and wounded? What's the trend in security and public safety? What are the Iraq people themselves doing? (Those who can are fleeing) I don't see ANY signs of improvement in the country. The Army and Police are militias of the various sides, the politicians are corrupt and the money we send is wasted.

Now, about solutions. First, of course, it's up to those who are actually pursuing the war to come up with alternatives to a failed policy. As George keeps saying, he's 'the decider', or, more to the point, the commander-in-chief. Second, those people WERE warned that their policy would not work. And it didn't. Third, as the reception of the Study Group shows, George WILL NOT listen to any alternative policy. All he can comprehend is Stay the Course, and Victory. That just digs us in deeper. And he keeps offering up the 'lie of the week'. Fourth, alternative polices have been offered. Listen to Biden, Powell, the Joint Chiefs, the State Department, the Commission and on and on.

I'm afraid that the end, which will come before summer is out, is most likely to be a Stalingrad on the Tigris. We'll put in tens of thousands of troops into the urban area, who will stumble all over each other and accomplish nothing except providing more targets, because there is NO PLAN. Then the tipping point will be reached when the Iraqi government collapses into a failed state. Our supply lines are cut. The airport is under constant rocket and mortar attack. And provisions begin to run low. Tens of thousands of Iraqis begin to overrun the Green Zone. In such close quarters air power is useless. An American Stalingrad. Panic ensues. Defeat looms.

Well, that was fascinating. The "American Stalingrad"? What a amazing world peaceniks live in. So deep in the fertile imagination, so shallow in reality. I digress for a moment, so back to the beginning. First we must squash this idiotic notion about personally fighting a war you support. What ignorant emotional swamp gas. I will quote again, "If you REALLY believe in the war against Iraq, then join up and FIGHT!" Huh? This is a nation we are discussing, not a feudal state. I can fully support the war, fully support the politicians who will decide on fighting a enemy that threatens some of the foundations of our Republic. I have the freedom in this country to pursue virtually any law abiding lifestyle I want, thanks to many amazing giants of men who went before, some sacrificing everything so that I have that opportunity. If the country were to engage in a critical fight where the number of men in the military was a question, I would gladly join if I could be of use. If they instituted a draft, and I were eligible, I would again join before being drafted, even if the fight was not one that I personally felt worthy.

This attitude is something I arrived at in my twenties. If in my teens I would have had the same attitude, I would have certainly joined the military. But, during some of my formative years, I had a far different view of the military. In my household was very strong 60's antiwar sentiment, and some disdainful attitudes towards the commander and chief Ronald Regan. In turn, I was impressed with a similar disdain, yet unestablished by my own critical thinking. This brings me to a seminal moment which some may find entertaining.

Though my attitude toward the military at the time was quite cynical due to parental influence, it was also one of fascination with military history from the same influence. This is not unexpected for many liberals, who seem to disconnect the present history from glorification of the past. Clearly a function of Vietnam's influence, whether justified or not. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind was a growing concern that the past and present were not dissimilar, yet my maturity in placing the present in context was minimal. I was a self centered, emotionally and intellectually isolated individual. Yet there was within that a spark of interest in military service, a spark dimmed by the lack of compulsion or personal conviction.

At that time it was compulsory in my high school to participate in the ASVAB, which I did. My scores were not unexpectedly off the chart, except in one category. I scored a 86 on the clerical section of the exam. Unaware at the time that my ADHD probably hindered my performance in that section. In fact, I didn't even know there was a clerical component, and found it frustratingly amusing. Needless to say, recruiters were quite interested in discussing my future (albeit not as a desk clerk...). I accepted a invitation from the naval recruiters on a whim and went to visit. I remember my heart at the time was bitter. I had much hidden resentment and spite, which was looking for a outlet.

At this meeting I quickly narrowed down the possibilities to one thing I actually had desired in dreams of the future. Aviation had been in my families history from WWII, and I figured that would be exciting to explore. But, I have very poor eyesight... Its completely corrected by contacts or glasses, yet far outside a acceptable range for military aviation. No pilot for me, no copilot, no hands on the controls... No excitement for my teen self. So I got what I wanted, self pity and broken dreams. Then the unconscious plan floated to the surface, the plan of ensuring failure to insulate myself from not living up to or even attempting to meet high expectations (a common theme in my early days). I steered the question rapidly towards the 80's recruiting guidelines on prior drug use. Of course I had already done my homework, so you could say it was 'lock and load' time.

A prospect during this period could easily and knowingly 'lie' on the record when signing up. It was a unwritten guideline for recruiters to explain to their young eager plebes that 'no' could mean 'I don't recall at this time', or some such thing. They wanted real honesty in the verbal interview so as to gage a bit of your character, but for the record it needed to be clean. Tough sell in the town I grew up in as drug and alcohol abuse was pretty rampant. Yet for me it was more than special. I had a few questions for them about the policy. The result was quite interesting. If you had 'inhaled', maybe a few times, they were still very interested in pursuing you, yet pulled a bit of the stern 'your lucky for this opportunity' shtick. But when it came to other drug usage, the unwritten guideline obviously became null, because when I informed them about the level of my explorations with D-lysergic acid diethylamide (multiple trials over a period of years), they immediately lost the spark in their eyes. At the time I counted it a great coup d'etat, but in retrospect, it was another great opportunity that I had not the guts or discipline to recognize.

If I had enlisted, I would have still been in at the start of the Gulf War. A couple of decades can sure put things in strange light. This brings us back to the topic of the current conflict. What is a reasonable estimate of how long we will be fighting Islamofascists? Twenty years? Forty? What constitutes this crisis today? Is the military in a recruitment crisis? No. Are we currently engaged in heavy combat? No. Should patriotically minded men in the desirable age group 18-25 consider military service? Certainly, I would in such circumstance. Single and 18 would be a no brainer. Married and 25, you could both consider it a noble sacrifice. Easy to make that choice. Yet either one can be just as patriotic in pursuing other interests. There is no crunch for volunteers at this time.

Ignorant critics disdain those who do not agree with their political position, and impugn the personal choices of political opponents. This is just a lack of civility and character. The same people will give any pass to members of their own persuasion without flinching, clearly exposing the guttural partisan nature of the attacks. For instance in the above letter concerning personal service for a cause individually supported, there is a doubling back to denigrate the cause itself, as if anyone who supports the war actions of their government should make all effort to do so personaly in a military manner, and if the individual is not willing to do so, the cause is clearly not worth it. What elite tripe. It's the lowest form of persuasion, and supremely ineffective.

Far more odious is the use of a great Patriot like Paine to impugn the motives of those who do support Americas military, both its members and its mission. How short sighted to not make the real comparison between the contexts of the American Revolution and the emergence of a free and democratic Iraq. I can quote Paine a bit as well, just a few lines from his exhortation to support the Revolutionary Army, "Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered..." Contemplate with that in mind, whether this brilliant man would be in support of our effort in Iraq at this time. Do we need more convincing? Ok, how about "Heaven knows how to set a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." Are you kidding me? Looks like he was a God fearing Christian man as well. Clearly a Bush supporter!

This pretty well negates the simian argument against being in Iraq. If freedom is of the most noble efforts, who needs WMD? I jest in part, but scoff at the fever swamp who can not see the any threat that does not serve their political purpose. Furthermore, I reject the insolent leftist poll quoters who will not ask the simple question, "Do you want Iraq to be a free, successful democracy?" In similar fashion, the reporting falls in step. No objective analysis paints a rosy picture, yet that same picture is very far from defeat. Certainly things could become much worse, yet even in that we would be ahead in the strategic picture. No where near the defeatist collapse eagerly hoped for by peacenik leftists.

That collapse is the solution for the left. The illicit thrill hoped for, like a necrophiliac visiting the morgue, the left excites at the prospect of defeat for Bush. "Cut and run, screw the Iraqis, bless the little pointy heads of the Islamofascist supporters of the Democratic party." What a mantra. No matter what the outcome, history will not be kind to the nutters. American Stalingrad indeed. More vile NAZI metaphor from the party of peace. What will it take for the scales to fall?

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Liberal Sentimentality Twists in the Wind

I blasted off a little tidbit concerning the concept and actions surrounding 'negotiations' with Syria:

Oh boy! Real progress being made for sure by your traitorous buffoon Nelson. Backstabbing Democrats, sucking our country into the pit of despair. Anyhow, even the state run Syrian media don't like him. What an idiot.

Syria Responds to Senator

I love this quote though:
It said it was strange that some U.S. senators who visited Syria were very "gentle, diplomatic and attentive" while in Syria but immediately after they leave Damascus "they turn upside down and start making up stories and tales that exist only in their fertile imagination."

Well, Hells Bells, what did they expect? It is a Liberal Democrat, betraying his own country, not some honorable spokesperson. I mean, par for the course right? Standard Dem operating procedure... Love that fertile imagination!

What did I receive for my efforts? A emotional appeal, a patriotic piece of prose, at first. Well its interesting at the end, and the appeal to convince based on sentimentality was crafted nicely. However, it seems the tables are upturned, you be the judge:

Yesterday I took a tour of the nation's Capitol, the Old Supreme Court Chamber, where Dred Scott was argued, the Old House Chamber, where Webster uttered 'Liberty and Union, Now and Forever!', where John Quincy Adams, the only President who entered the House AFTER being President, so outraged the slave south by presenting, time and time again, petitions for the abolition of slavery that he was ejected (and then re-elected by Mass.), where Lincoln sat and learned the ropes of representative government. The into the Senate Chamber. Who can count the glorious and wonderful events of that chamber? And the Rotunda, where Presidents have laid In State since Jefferson.

This is a Republic, by God it is! As close to a Democracy as the will and minds and laws of Man can make

And I expect that, as my great-grandfather John Slocum did at Gettysburg, I, and my children, and my grand-children and every generation to come will fight to the death to defend it. All of it. And all of us. Every word of the Constitution is a hard fought bargain struck between ourselves and those who have gone before. In elections, in the courts, on the battlefield and around every dining room table in America.

The quote below, from Edward R. Murrow, was directed at Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, member of earlier group of those who have, from time to time, put self-aggrandizement and party above the interests of the Nation. It applies, even more forcefully, to the Bush Administration of today, which willfully and spitefully refuses to change direction despite all evidence, the opinions of the vast majority of the American public, their own Generals in the field, and increasingly, their own party. They are so desperate to hang onto the trappings of power that they are willing to sacrifice our soldiers, our treasure, our national prestige and our essential Constitutional protections.

Edward R. Murrow said: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular..."

You ought to remember that YOU are descended from a member of the most distinguished group of men in the history of the world; the Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What I remember is that these men fought a revolution against the strongest military of the day based on their conviction of freedom. They won. In the face of complete defeat, with great loss, they stayed the course. My first beef with your analogy is the lack of honesty concerning the actual state of Middle East conflict. "Despite all evidence" and "vast majority" are completely wrong. You would wish that this were the case, and your friends in the liberal establishment media will try their best to make it so, but objectivity is not one of your tools. Oh, before that, if anyone has put self-aggrandizement and party above our Nation its your simian Liberal Democratic Leadership.

Nice tape released today from Al Zawaheri, claiming that Democrats should be meeting with him to organize Americas withdraw. Ah, another sign of how your party is really perceived in the world, traitors! If your perception of the terrorist pigs was correct, wouldn't they be supporting any republican? I mean, if American troops in Iraq are really creating more terrorist, doesn't that help their cause? But no, they want us out. Why? Could you figure this one out?

As for Ed and the quote, what is the unpopular cause? Is not freedom in Iraq become the unpopular cause? Has not the mainstream liberal media been living in fear for the last six years? Fear and hate have driven liberals to actually confuse dissent and disloyalty. They have become disloyal, and end up walking in fear of their fellow countrymen. Fear has driven reason out of the liberal mind, emotion rules the direction of liberal thought.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

From Johnson to Iraq, the Real Commentary!

Best wishes and speedy recovery to Sen. Johnson. Now to the frivolous banter! The folowing piece of mail was entitled "neat", oh boy!
Well, looks like both Bush and McCain have fallen into the trap. Apparently Bush is going to take McCain's suggestion and send an additional 35,000 troops to Iraq. They can do this for a few months by overlapping the tours of duty; starting the incoming troops a few months before the outgoing troops leave.

In other words, the idiots have decided to take sides in a civil war! The 'terrorists' in Iraq must be popping champagne corks over this one! It's like General Terry sending more help to Custer......all it does is give the enemy more targets to kill.

On another subject.... If the Senator from S.D. dies or can't serve, the Gov. of S.D., a Republican, appoints someone to the office until the next general election in 2008. Question: Will the Governor do the honorable thing and name someone of the same political party, a Democrat, or will he do the crass political thing, and name a Republican? Wanna make a guess?!

My irreverent reply with the chop comments
Honor? Please, liberals don't know the meaning of the word. He will do the honorable thing all right and appoint himself. But don't expect it to happen.
NL: This is a most interesting reaction on your part. It certainly makes working together in Congress a bit difficult don't you think? But, the position of Rove and Nordquist for the past 12 years has been that they don't need the D's, we got the votes. They thought that they were headed for a permanent R majority; that the neocon victory was forever. But, as the R's are about to find out, no victory is forever. Majorities change to minorities. And, believe it or not, in domestic, as in internation politics, you do have to work with and talk to your political opponents. The real world does have a way of intruding. If positions were reversed I would expect a D Gov to say, well, u won the seat, your entitled to have an R fill it for the next two years to a general election, and name an R to the seat. That's the way honorable men and women work. Alas, we seem to be past that, and politics is not the business of governing but the business of simply winning.

I have a question though. What becomes of the vote for leader? No way Johnson gives up his seat willingly, yet if he is incapacitated, no vote. So, the majority has not enough votes.....
NL: Well, as the SD state web site notes, this has happened before in SD. Karl Mundt (I have a picture from about 1962 of my mother and I in Mundt's office in DC with his arms around both of us. Look him up and see what his politics were.....) lingered for a long long time and the Gov didn't appoint anybody. The seat was not empty, legally. So, nobody could vote in his name even though the D's would technically still hold the majority, as there would be 50 D's and 49 R's, this being a rare case where loosing a seat, so to speak, does not automatically mean the gain of a seat for the opposition. The purpose would be to keep that majority and hence the chairmenships etc.

Love your boy Harry, "He really looks good..." Yeah, I just had brain surgery, doctors questionable if I will even live, but I look "marvelous"... Love it! Your boys a complete piece of work... Reminds me of when what's her name (congresses woman something or other) out here went in to the hospital. The hardcore dems claimed the family's privacy, and we never knew about her condition until she died two months later. Of course that was well past the time anyone could mount a campaign... Imagine those Honorable Dems doing such a thing! How about your Honorable Harry!
NL: Don't recall who your talking about. Somebody in Oregon? Anyway, there is no way to declare the seat vacant short of death or resignation.

I notice something though. One lib has done the honorable thing. Yes, uber lib judge actually upholds congress and the Pres! Bye bye Hamdan! Hahahahahahah ahahahahahahaha hahahahahhhaaa! I even give it to you at your favorite source:

Rare Carlos link to the Old Grey Hag

At least one lib has some honor...
NL: Judge Robertson is an interesting case. He resigned from the FISCourt without comment. He applied the statute and that was that. The next step, of course, is to appeal not the statute but the constitutional issue of hab. corp. to the Supreme Court and get a ruling there. Personally, I would argue that anybody who comes under the control of the US government also picks up the protections relating to due process, Hab Corp, speedy trial, right to confront witnesses and presentation of evidence, etc etc. The Constitution should cover and protect anybody who comes within its grasp. If you come under the penalties you should also come under the protections. Bush wants to avoid the usual criminal courts only because he knows he could not win a conviction there, in part based on the use of torture and in part because he knows that none of the cases would stand up to evidencery standards.

As for your celebration crap. You live in a vacuum. When did the terrorist actually celebrate recently? Yes, when Dems regained control. Why? Because they figured that meant they were winning and we would leave. You're in outer space. There is the real world, and then there is the nutters imaginary world. Even the liberal nutter MSM drive by press commented on the cheering by Americas enemy at the election result. They don't cheer when we send more troops... Wanna guess why?
NL: Can't say as I recall any 'celebrations'. Exactly what are you referring to? I would think they are celebrating now because the US is going to continue, at least for two more years, the same policies that will continue to drain the national treasure, get Americans killed, turn people the world over against the US, and produce the chaos that the insurgents and terrorists thrive in. If the Bushites and McCain actually do sent another 35,000 troops without a substantive change in how those troops are used, then the situation will only get worse. If the troops are used to provide security while construction takes place, if they are used to secure areas on a long term basis rather than search and clear and then leave, if they are embedded and work with carefully vetted units of the police and army who are loyal to a unified Iraq government, then they might accomplish something. But. I don't see any evidence that that is the plan, or could even be done at this point. I suspect we are far beyond that point. That should have been the immediate plan after defeating Saddam's army, and at some point the situation deteriorates beyond repair. It doesn't sound to me like there is anything to the Bushite plan other than more troops, without the necessary political settlement that has to occur. That being the case, the strategy (or non-strategy) will fail in a very few months, Iraq will collapse, the Saudis will come in from the west and the Iranians from the east and the Americans will try and retreat out in haste, disorder, dishonor and disaster just as they did in Vietnam, and will blame the Iraqis for their failure, just as they blamed the Vietnamese. Sic transit gloria.

End of Transmission

My comments on the discussion are brief. First, conservatives have never held a majority in the Senate. In fact you could argue we held the house for a few years, and two terms of the presidency ('80 and '84). So a definite majority is still out there for us. Bush and the current crop of Republicans had some success, and finally gained control, but they aren't very conservative. At least the president is movable on a few of the most important issues. But, unfettered spending, ridiculous border enforcement, refusal to stand up and lead against liberal inanity.... these transgressions are difficult to stomache.

Second, the constitution should cover any person who is a citizen of this country first and foremost. Then alien residents, tourist, on down to diplomats (scum of the earth). Illegal immigrants have broken our laws, and should be covered as well, i.e. deported. Then those of other status would fall under the many treaties we are signatories of, under Constitutional authority. Hence we can Constitutionally execute irregular enemy combatants at will in a time of war. To determine wether a individual falls into that category, we have nicely provided for them a fair and judicious method via military tribunals. Case closed except for whining liberal idiots who hate Bush first and foremost, and then the military, so the issue is ripe for much gnashing and grinding of teeth.

Finally, anyone who missed how pleased Ahmadinejad was at the election results is a buffoon. Congratulations flowed in from many a corner in the world of Islamofascism, and to ignore it leaves ones head deep in the sand. In fact you could say the Democratic party was definitely the representatives of choice for Islamofascists. Then to assume that what the terrorists thugs want is more of our best and brightest speaks to a arrogance coupled with blindness concerning the nature of the battle we face. However, a scenario of true civil war is always a possibility. Every country has civil unrest looming in the background, even first world monocultures like Japan. When you consider the socioeconomic forces in modern Iraq, the possibility of a religious war is always near. It was less than two decades previous that the same area saw much conflict. The goal of each player is to gain as large a supporting population base as possible, and then in the case of the Islamic nutters, expand as necessary until all are subdued. The Kurds aren't giving anything up, and we are currently building a very nice facility in the Kurdish 'state' that I am sure will be welcome to the US for many moons. The Sunni triangle is a loss, but the expectations before the war probably weren't to high. Sadly, after making a stand in Fallujah and other areas, we turned it back over to weak Iraq control.

It can be expected that the population in those areas resent American security. They suffered the least under Saddam, and lost the most when he fell. The crux of this current situation revolves around how much control of Iraqi Shiites can Iran get before the Iraq police forces become stable. That could take a decade. Yet to allow the region to dissolve into more conflict would be detrimental to US security. We are fighting a war initiated by Islamofascist nutters, and though the battlefield has changed, the commonality in purpose of the enemy has not. Saddam wanted to expand his control in a Stalinist fashion, yet irritated to many neighbors. Think of his playbook though, lob missiles into Israel continuously while looting a fat prize Kuwait. What were the missiles for? Arab political cover. Anyone who lobs missiles into Israel is a true Arab hero. What does Iran do in the modern day? Hezbollah as a proxy lobs missiles into Israel. Iran is a valiant warrior of the people. Al the while infiltrating Iraq and attempting a nuclear arsenal.

We will be seeing a greater conflict soon, whether we want it or not. And we can fuddle duddy around with inane attempts at pathetic diplomacy, or prepare for serious conflict. Talking all day long will postpone, no will give those who are relatively weak time to strengthen themselves. Has Hezbollah disarmed yet? Or perhaps have they resupplied themselves? Will Iran attain a nuclear device? Or is it when? A key in both of these questions is Iraq. If Iraq is a complete mess, there will be even greater pressure. If Iraq strengthens itself, the chance of Iran and Syria further supporting terrorist activities diminishes.

All of these points seem clear and self evident to me, yet why such ignorance on the part of socialist liberals in America? To let emotion control your behavior is a sure sign of eventual defeat. And the leftists are filled with rage, hate, and anger in this country. What will satisfy them? What will appease them? Or do they need to be marginalized and eliminated... Americas greatest threat right now seems to be from within, a potent cancer of the heart. Liberal socialism, the permanently disaffected. May we be given a great light to shine upon them.

More Traitors in the Senate?

Ah, can you believe the wonder of liberal nutters? Have a taste...
The Senate may actually be trying to conduct foreign policy! Why, why, the nerve of those people, taking their constitutional duties seriously! I mean, how dare then go around a President and Secretary of State that only know obstruction and war rather than negotiation and peace. Next thing you know one of them will want to go to North Korea. Which ain't such a bad idea.....

Uh, you mean undermine our foreign policy. Put your glasses on. So now its a 'constitutional duty' to negotiate with terrorist supporting nations? Oh, and it works so well too. I'm sure Assad will be all accommodating. I'm sure he will stop aiding Hezbollah right away. And the border with Iraq, yep, patroled night and day. Hey, lets throw Lebanon under the bus.... Typical of lib idiots. Sacrifice anything so long as it is a path to more power. Unless you are really delusional and think that you can make nice with a society who's major congregating factor is Israeli and Western hate. Along with a bunch of other fears and hates. Makes me laugh that you nutters fall for the diplomacy line every time. "Oh yes, we would love to help you in Iraq..." Regan was the last president to successfully negotiate with the Iranians, but the nutters shot that down. Not that I would be in favor of that strategy, but it is funny that lib idiots didn't want to negotiate if it meant success for Regan. Oh, and didn't another traitorous scum lib Dem senator thwart US foreign policy then to? A little trip to support the commie bastard Ortega? Yes a long and sordid history of hindering America from within... Oh, don't forget the other traitors who colluded with the North Vietnamese.

Fight internal oppression by socialist Liberals!!!!!!!

Friday, September 22, 2006

Liberals Seriously Want the Bush Administration to be Hitler's Nazi Party

Ok, its a big title, but consider it for a moment. Now, follow along the twisty windy road to follow. It is scary and amazing that there are people who really swallow this. The original provocation went something like:
Subject: Irony
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:55:57 -0700
From: -----------
To: -----------

Irony-an event or result marked by incongruity.

To Wit:
US widow deported over Nazi past

An elderly German woman who kept secret her role as a Nazi concentration camp guard for more than 60 years has been deported from the US, it has emerged. Elfriede Rinkel, who was married to a Jewish man, was described as a "nice, sweet lady" by those who knew her. Mrs Rinkel, 84, never revealed the grim details of her past during the 47 years she lived in San Francisco. But earlier this month US officials uncovered her role as a guard during WWII, and deported her back to Germany. Mrs Rinkel's husband Fred was a German Jew who arrived in the US after escaping the Holocaust. He died in 2004, never learning of his wife's secret.

'Horrific mistreatment' According to the US Department of Justice, Mrs Rinkel served as a guard at the Ravensbruck women's labour camp in Germany from June 1944 until April 1945, when it was abandoned by the Nazis. There she worked with an SS-trained attack dog, but was not a member of the Nazi party. Attack dogs were used to march malnourished inmates back and forth from slave labour sites each day, the department added. An estimated 90,000 people died at the camp during WWII.

"She was... such a nice, sweet lady who seemed to have a very loving relationship with her husband..." Gene Kaufman.

"Concentration camp guards such as Elfriede Rinkel played a vital role in the Nazi regime's horrific mistreatment of innocent victims," Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said.

Let us now move into the future, say September 2068.

News item: An elderly American soldier who kept secret his role as an Abu Gruib guard for more than 60 years has be extradited to Iraq. He had served as a guard at the infamous Iraqi prison in 2004-2006 where he worked with a trained attack dog, but was not a member of the now long outlawed Republican party. An estimated 90,000 peopled died as a result of the US attack during the early 2000's. "Prison guards such as this man played a vital role in the Bush regime's horrific mistreatment of innocent Iraqi victims" says the Assistant Attorney General.

Which is to say, what goes around comes around.

Well of course I found this quite distasteful, but right in line with common liberal Bush hate. The fever swamp is full of rhetoric like this. However, as this particular barb originated from a lib with a brain, a response was necessary, and here is what I sent.
Irony? I would say you are seriously screwed in the head. But we already knew that. Abu was for bad guys and suspected bad guys. But you can't see that. Nazi death camps were of a different nature obviously. So stupid you libs are. Liberal guilt and Bush hatred combined into one seriously screwed up view of the world. Heard that Pres Mahmoud in a interview with his own media say "Kofi called me and said not to worry about the resolution and sanctions, nothing will come of it." How is that? And the French, signing the resolution, now throw it out the window. Ah the UN, fertilizer of evil, bastion of Dictators and Socialists.

Its funny that you want the Republican party to be the Nazis. Yet your own party holds up true fascists and dictators as glorious role models. Very odd.

As you would expect, with such glorious rhetoric, we got a rapid response defending the nutters view. As you can guess, the overriding theme is one of Bush hate coupled to blame America first. Not very original, but we need to be reminded (maybe):
a. Iran is not a D vs R issue. It's a US/west policy issue. Notice how everybody who is against Iran getting a bomb, if that's really what they are up to, already have the bomb. And the US made sure that India, Israel and Pakistan (Pakistan!!!) have the bomb. The US also supported Iraq under Saddam in the 80's when he was working on a bomb because we thought he'd use it on Iran. Is there a little bias here! Yes, there is. And Iran can't help but notice, as do all third world countries, that the US will do nothing against a country that HAS the bomb, for example North Korea. The bomb is a deterrent, and Iran may feel that they need a deterrent (though of course I can't see why......).

b. The issue about the guards isn't who the victims were. From your point of view it's bad to use torture and mass murder if the victims are innocent Jews, but it's ok if they are innocent Iraqis. Either torture and mass murder is wrong, period, or it's not. Which is it oh Christian conservative? Where does Jesus stand on the issue of torture and mass murder? (as an aside, u might recall that the Nazis said the Jews were 'bad guys' too. I mean, they did 'stab the Fatherland in the back in 1918, they are responsible for the Communist Red Terror in Bavaria, and they burned the Reichstag building, right.)

c. Do you really think that the residents of the Nazi death camps and the residents of Abu Gruib would see a big difference between the two while they are being tortured? Is not the behavior that took (takes) place in such places wrong on its face, regardless of who the victims are and regardless of who is committing the crime? Evil is evil.

d. Have seen nil on any such phone call. Gimme a citation? In any event, I find it odd that the US who always says that sanctions don't work (like in Iraq, South Africa, Guatemala, Zimbabwe etc etc) suddenly thinks they will. Anyhow, just what sanctions u got in mind? Russia is right next door and will be glad to sell whatever Iran needs in exchange for oil and influence in the region. The world needs to buy Iranian oil, so I doubt sanctions would work at all. As a strategy sanctions would have the same effect in Iran as they had in Iraq, simply united the people of the country against the outsiders; the complete marginalization of moderates in the country as all rally round the flag.

e. Exactly what dictators in the UN did you have in mind. Remember we went thru the list of UN members a month or so ago and came up with very few on the list of 192 member states; unless, of course you want to count traditional American allies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, and Qatar as shining examples of 'democracy'.

f. this last one really tickles me. What party put in power and/or supported with billions of taxpayer dollars: The Generals in Vietnam, Burma, Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, South Africa, Cuba (before Castro), Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq........the list goes on and on. Well, it wasn't us socialists jack. It was the R's and the D's. Git a grip bub. As long as we're about it, who sold munitions to Japan and loaned Nazi Germany money? Who went over and kissed and made up with Commie China? Who's made up with Libya and signed trade agreements with the Col.? Gee, the socialists? Not hardly. The US will do ANYTHING for money.

I didn't spend much time covering all points in my reply, but you can guess what the central theme was. Unless you have no sense of reality.
Yes, again, its the mote in your eye. On topic a, your theme remains consistent, its all our fault. So point a is no point at all. Point b, you again equate the mass extinction of ethnic groups with possible combatants in a war. Its is a "Holy Treaty" of your religion that all those Iraqis were poor innocent bystanders, and if they weren't, well we drove them to do whatever it was they did to get incarcerated. Your very dishonest with yourself if you actually believe this liberal crack, and if you don't then you equally duplicitous for being a mouthpiece of such inanity. Its seems radical liberalism has removed that gift of critical thinking.

Where is the mass murder?

Where is the systematic torture?

Crickets are chirping. If you mean the tactics we used on the 14 pigs that were moved to Guantanamo, go for it. Pull there fingers off. Boil them in oil. I think most of society is actually in support of radical treatment of radicals. If you are trying to pull the fever swamp line that we have murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis, then you are either a fever swamp parrot or quite on the far side. So, was the firebombing of Dresden murder? Your nutter position is just a personal redefinition of warfare to suit your political needs, not very enlightening.

Are you freaking nuts? Lets see, starved, beat, forced labor, then you get shot, torched or gassed. En masse. The pleasant Nazi experience. And on the other side, free food, medical aide, access to the Red Cross. Oh, and most are simply released after being picked up. Yes, there were a few that were humiliated, so what. And a few died. So what. Your comparison is so revealing of how sick the left has become, that it saddens me. Anyhow, on to point e, which is irrelevant. They love to loath the US, have done so for as long as we have been successful. The UN has become a parody of a joke. When a confirmed state sponsor of terrorism gets a ovation, it doesn't matter what the label on the governmental system is of the gathered nations, they are not our friends.

For the last point, you again descend into the blame the US first mental defense. Its kinda weak. And your socialists have such a great track record, yea, the perfect foil. Right.

So of course we will get a reply to that. Here is where the waters get muddy. To defend the indefensible, arguments are crafted that do not address the root of the current conflict. Furthermore, you can smell the idiotic premise of "lets all talk and just get along" underlying many statements.
Our fault? Who's 'our'? I'm happy to start with WW1 policies of the UK and France. (The Crusades might be a bit tooooo far back.) So, during WW1 the Brits et all divie up the middle east with France. They need oil for their fleets and industry, and the Brits want to protect passage via Suez to India. So they make up countries as they go along. Basic history of the Middle East it seems to me. The US role doesn't come until WW2 and after as the Brit and French empires crumble and we step into the power vacuum in competition with Russia during the Cold War. Remember the Truman Doctrine as it relates to Iran. Essentially, the above three powers supported (and support) any government that will protect our economic (now exclusively oil) interests in the region, and claim to be anti-commie (like Nasser) Remember the Brits and French reaction when Egypt nationalized the Suez canal. Remember the US reaction when Iran voted in an government that wanted to nationalize Iranian oil. The same story in any number of places. So, yes, the West's suppression of legitimate democratic aspirations and nationalist governments in the Middle East actually PRODUCED the flowering of the Islamist extremist movement; we caused it by 80 years of stupid policy in the area. There is no reason to believe that there would now be ANY significant Islamist movement EXCEPT in reaction to those policies.

It matters not a wit WHO the people are; we should not pursue a policy of torture UNDER ANY CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER, PERIOD. That is not what the US stands for, that is not our way of dealing with enemies in time of war, it is a counterproductive policy in many ways, and it costs us whatever moral high ground there is. It IS NOT RIGHT, and that alone is sufficient reason not to torture, period.

regarding next statement... Bull pucky. I said no such thing. You talk like Artmitage and Scooter. If there is a case to be made for criminal prosecutions then go ahead and make it. Go to some kind of judicial situation, produce the evidence and proceed. The US isn't doing that because: a. most of the people picked up in Afghanistan and Iraq can't be shown to have done a damn thing. b. In an open court they would recount their mistreatment and torture, the case would get thrown out and the US would look bad. Sure there are some guilty people in the herd..... they should have been sorted out early and brought to trial. Now they can't be.

As for the moral issue of torture and mass murder: ah, u don't like the words mass murder. OK, lets get technical. Crimes against humanity, violations of the rules of war, genocide, crimes against the treaties. There are literally thousands of such incidents that have occurred in Iraq that qualify.

Where is the mass murder? see above

Where is the systematic torture? well, to start with it's in the policy statements issued in the commander in chiefs name from DOD which approved those practices which the US Supreme court found to be in violation of the Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions. Now lets add in the rendition process, CIA secret prisons, sending captives to countries for torture----all widely practiced and such obvious violations of US and international law they don't deserve comment.

regarding next statement... Yes, I see true Christian values coming thru now. Torture for Jesus.....welcome to the 14th century. Well. First, most of the US does not approve of torture. Second, even if they did it is neither legal nor moral. If you become a barbarian to fight barbarians you have lost. What is the justification for the use of torture? The experts tell us that the information you get is unreliable. Ask those victims of the Inquisition who had to admit that they consorted with the 'devil'. Sure usable confessions there. The experts also tell us that the way to get cooperation with a prisoner is quite different. You befriend them. You use a system of rewards. You get their confidence. You undermine their belief structure. Good grief people, learn a little psychology! I also note that you ASSUME that the fourteen new addees to Gitmo ARE GUILTY. How nice. But suppose you are WRONG, and some of them have really DONE NOTHING. Now you have tortured an innocent person, probably even gotten them to confess to terrible things......then what? Are you really willing to take the position that it is OK to torture the innocent? I don't recall learning that in Sunday School or my highschool civics least outside of medieval Spain. Suppose you get a confession. You can't use it in court. If you get a confession in some kangaroo military court are you really willing to execute somebody JUST on the basis of that confession extracted under torture? Wow.

Now about Dresden. Of course it was murder. Question is, under the SAME rules the Allied Commission applied to the Germans, was it a war crime. Well, lemme tell you about one of those cases. Karl Donitz, grand-admiril of the submarine fleet, was going to be put on trial for crimes against humanity and waging aggressive war because of his use of 'unrestricted submarine warfare'. His defense council contacted one Chester W. Nimitz, whose name should ring a bell. Adm. Nimitz PERSONALLY wrote a friend of the court brief in which he advocated NOT proceeding with case. Why? Because the very first command issued to the Pacific fleet on December 7, 1941 was to the sub fleet, and it said COMMENCE UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE AGAINST JAPAN. Which is to say, if Donitz was a war criminal, why so were the Americans. Needless to say, that part of the case was dropped.

regarding next statement... Well, there are two levels of problem here. First, what did \do American forces themselves do; second what have/do the Iraqi government FOR WHICH WE ARE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE do. On the first level, there is good evidence (as current criminal prosecutions show) that US troops and CIA torturers systematically abused thousands of Iraqi prisoners. This isn't sexual humiliation at Abu G, it's beating with electric cables, waterboarding, genital electrical shocks and the like. It is likely that hundreds died as a result, thousands deformed and crippled.
on the second level, whether you like it or not, the current Iraqi government is responsible to the US for it's illegal behavior. We are the de facto occupying power and have responsibility for what occurs. On a higher moral level, the US is responsible in that none of this would have happened absent the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. As several people told the Bushits at the time, you break it, you buy it. Now George is stuck to that tarbaby, with no visible way out.

regarding next statement... Gee, hope ur not claiming that the US didn't do all that......are my history books wrong? I don't recall the socialists ever having been in power in this country? When was that?

We must address the last section in that its a total fabrication. We are not legally responsible for the Iraqi government, they exist on their own now. Stupid liberal tricks, go try again. Then the claims of torture... No proof of systematic torture at all. In fact, there is such little real evidence of any real torture one wonders if we are aggressively pursuing the nasty death lovers hard enough. All jest aside, this is another "Holy Truth" of the church of liberalism. "Likely" hundreds died. I could find evidence of one. All the rest are claims without proof. "Thousands" deformed and crippled... Again, not much evidence of any American involvement in such. Notice that we are responsible as the "de facto" occupying power, and hence culpable for any abuses made by Iraqi forces. To summarize, we are responsible for 'illegally' invading Iraq. We created the terrorists. We are responsible for those stopping the terrorists. We a responsible for not doing enough to stop the violence. We are responsible for being to violent stopping the violence. Oh, how does the liberal sleep at night.

Can you believe this? Seriously, the nutters really believe. Confused they are, very (Yoda). But the philosophical point that seems to be raised is interesting. Everywhere falling back on some legality compelling us to prosecute this modern conflict according to the liberals view. Clearly the fever swamp does not recognize the threat Islamofascism poses to the west. More than that, the liberal's struggle is against Americans, not our enemies. Do they clamor for Mahmoud's arrest for violating the Geneva conventions by calling for the genocide? Do they want to hold real criminals to task like Hamas or Hezbollah? Do they care when US armed forces get their throats cut? Tortured and dragged through the street, yet not much about bringing the perps to justice from the left. No, its all about how we created this problem, we are making it worse, we are responsible for creating all these problems. What idiots. Attitudes like this tend to make me more nationalistic just to rub their noses. This is the greatest country on earth. We are the beacon of freedom. Millions are trying to emigrate here every year. Socialist wankers around the world loath us. What more proof do you need that we are on the right path? American, proud to be I am (Yoda).

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Thoughts of Evolutionary Biology

So I get forwarded another excerpt from our favorite fish-wrap, the Old Grey Hag, concerning a 'alarming' omission of in the funding of poor undergraduate students in the specific field of evolutionary biology. Its got all the perfect trappings of a great liberal puff piece; possible meddling of Christians, concerned elitists, aid for the downtrodden, and the core belief of the new liberal religion 'separation of church and state'. What more could you ask for! Unfortunately, I don't like to link to the Hag, besides you have to sign up to access content, but if you must this might work (link does not work - title is "Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List"). Hmmm, are they making money over there at the Hag? Here is the one liner attached to the forward:
The looney tunes CCCRW strikes again! Religious ideology over science!
My response was inspiring:

Boy, you complain about blogs, yet this tripe is downright conspiratorial! And its a major newspaper! No evidence of anything except knee jerk responses and intentional spin for you anti Christian nutters. Which is strange, because it is not a large majority of Christians who are against evolution. It is a small group of literalist who really make it their pastime to look stupid. I wrote a nice piece for the 'cloth' per se against the idiotic current fad of Intelligent Design. God gave man a brain, and a free will. Use both and its pretty easy to see that the world is billions of years old, the continents move around, dinosaurs duked it out for millions of years ... yada yada. That is not the point of faith, yet some are adamant about trying to 'prove' whatever mythology they happen to believe. Speaking of evolution, you have to read this:

Cat-killing raccoons
Olympia Raccoons

Yes, humans have evolved to the point where we have neighborhood grief counseling for cat loss, and abject fear of some raccoons. Coons that have evolved themselves apparently, to a smarter, meaner class of urban predator. But the real evolution is in the newspaper business, who have degenerated into emotional pablum peddlers, kind of like slime mold of the soul. The similarities in intent and style betwixt all three articles is startling, though the content is completely dissimilar. Very interesting.

Monday, August 14, 2006

The Intelligent Dinosaur

(more redstate rerelease - I want to make sure everyone can access)

I think to myself, Carlos, why would you want to heat up the apparently destructive debate on ID (Intelligent Design)? What can be gained by dividing the ranks of the conservative masses? And why would I want to cower under a pile of hot coals? But, alas, sensibility is not my strongest point, and I personally think dogmatic alignment with ones religious teachings are dangerous, no matter how 'right' you personal religion is. God gave you a mind and a soul. You are to use your mind to evaluate and be critical. Then exercises your will and decide. And for those who the fire has alighted, there is a additional promoting in your conscience on the decisions you make. Most likely your faith will be strengthened in the process.

For those who are now asking "Is Carlos going to get preachy?" I can assure you, I will focus the dialectic towards the conservative hermeneutic. (At the same time using obscure words with religious connotations, dope.) In other words, if you care not for the condition of your soul, but yearn for the days of Reagan, you will still find something here. And I will refrain from overt proselytizing, its my solemn promise and vow. Is that all the boilerplate cleared up? Apart from stating that no actual dinosaurs were made extinct in the creation of this exposition.The term science seems to mean many things to many people in this ID debate. Science is just a word meaning knowledge. The inference is to that which is knowable, things that can be seen, constructions that can be observed, processes that can be replicated. It also has the implication that observers can come to agreement on the description or labeling of known things. Here we face the first misunderstood aspect of modern science among those whose exposure is predominantly lay media. Known things in science are peer reviewed. This does not mean infallibility, or establish absolute truth. It simply means that the description is acceptable. It means when scientists communicate, they agree on the validity of the communication. In the process, obvious flaws are identified, and many theories that are easily disproved are avoided in the 'open' published discussion.

Lets comment briefly then on Darwin's theory. He made observations, proposed a explanation for those observations, and communicated that to the world. Modern science is not so much interested in proving the absolute 'origin' of life. It is interested in making connections between observations. So the first problem is solved. Yes there may be many misguided secularist in the scientific community who want to promote some ultimate origin apart from God as a curricula in public schools. But that is not science either. And there are many more non-scientific secularists who would go right along. This a political stance based on a philosophy, where the subject is comparative mythology more than science. Conversely, creating a paradigm that obfuscates the incredible body of evidence in support of mutogenesis and genetic phylogeny is equally not science.

Which brings us to the first argument. Many organisms evolve on a time scale that is easily observable during the human lifetime. Viruses and bacteria are a good example. Is it Gods hand mutating the genes of such? Or are they operating in a system designed by God? Either of these questions are fine, yet not the realm of science. What is the scientific aspect of this in regards to ID? Do I make a test out of bacterial strains and suddenly proclaim hidden intelligence is at work? First, it is not a provable test, as you would need to uncover the connections to the hidden intelligence. Second, the actual test of observing the changes in these organisms has been a part of the testable world of knowledge for decades, mutogenesis seems to explain things each time.

If you want to argue that mutogenesis is the connection to the Designer, that is just as well, yet still not the realm of science. It is a perfectly valid philosophical debate, and one that should be a part of public education. The origins of modern scientific thought were the classic minds, many of whom partook in the philosophical debate surrounding faith, and the awareness of that historic, and continuing conversation is not well represented in modern American curricula. We have strayed from our Enlightenment roots, and do not lay the groundwork for critical thinking in any systematic way within the public education system.

Before we stray into the intended territory I would ask this question of the reader: "As a conservative, what does science mean to you?" As you ponder, think for a moment what the scientist does. If he/she is good at their particular branch of science, they pursue primary research. This is the real experimentation and observation. They publish results, and promote theories to be investigated and validated by others. Some of these theories are unproven, and can not be validated until more information is gained. Here is another area of confusion. For instance, the theory of Global Warming is a hot political issue. Some people believe that we as a society can prevent further damage to the Earth by changing our lifestyles and cultures. Yet, the theory is not validated, the definition of damage is unclear, and there is no evidence we can control human impact, either socially or physically, in a global sense.

The analogous implication for ID is this: the theory of ID is not validated, the definition of organized complexity is unclear, and there is no evidence of direct involvement in the evolution of any species. Most will not fight with me over the first and third issues, so lets have fun with the second. Here is when we bring in the dinosaur. Complex higher order creatures. We even have a few remnants of that age with us today. Alligators and crocodiles have many similarities to some dinosaurs of yesteryear. Were they intelligently designed? I mean, most dinosaurs are extinct. A complex higher order being, that just didn't have what it took to survive. Or maybe the designer got tired of them? Is success and true complexity simply defined by brain tissue, or survivability? Is that the measure of organized complexity?

Presumably the designer in ID is God. Yet this is not inherent in the justification of ID, and we don't need to equate the two. But if it is my God, he doesn't make mistakes. And there is the real problem. ID in some ways attempts to judge what is more or less valuable, as if it is foreknown what the conclusion should look like. That is not a perfect designer. Unless your definition of ID is that of a Supreme Creator of the Universe. And that creating includes everything we can observe and learn about. Things like light from galaxies 13 billion years old, rocks billions of years old from the formation of the planet, and ancient dinosaurs. Its a whole creation full of amazing and wonderful things to discover. That is the platform into which man is placed, with the tools and desire to investigate it.

The ability to pursue science, the knowledge of the creation, the communication of that knowledge, is one of God's great gifts to man. Science predates the fall of man in Genesis 2:19,20:

"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. "

In fact, science was Adams first pursuit before Eve, if only he had stayed on the straight and narrow. Or, as the contrarian would say, "Science is a poor substitute for love." And yes, personally I would ditch my field to keep my wife, however, not all of my dweebish colleagues have done that. Ah, we have strayed off topic slightly, the more important illumination is within our political debate among conservatives. A large loyal core of conservatives are Christians, some with varying degrees of 'fundamentalism'. Within this religious viewpoint are many healthy values that also define modern conservatism. Unfortunately, some baggage comes with the various doctrines. Faith brings freedom and understanding. But there is no necessity to suspend reason at the same time.

Likewise, for the atheist, who is not interested in science, the same can be said. There is no need for awe and fear at the apparent unknown complexity of scientific pursuit. Just develop healthy criticism of popularized 'science' and it relation to political topics. Simply being critical regarding 99% of what is reported in mass media about science will get you a long way towards comfortable understanding when it is necessary to make a decision. The real advances in science will integrate into society by the inherent success of the application, not by the politicization of the theory. Which leaves us with ID. It has not endured open criticism, and is far too recent a suggestion to begin developing primary school curricula around. And if you are simply headed for the comparative philosophy argument of divine origin vs primordial chaos, just back up a bit, and see that we would have great benefit from that topic in the curricula, but it is not the area of science.

Furthermore for the concerned conservative Christian, you can not purge modern science of liberals and atheist, who represent a majority in scientific academia. However, that is a result of the education systems forty year failure to promote critical thinking, not some inherent secular nature of science. Our political efforts, and debate, would be well served by continued illumination of the root causes of this problem. Openly debating certain fundamentalist regarding the existence of dinosaurs for example, is rightly so, a distracting and divisive waste for our community. But promoting the extreme benefit of critical thought, and separating science from the culture of modern academic Scientists, is a very positive and worth wile pursuit.

If you feel strongly about the secularization of our schools, you should be even more concerned with the removal of the foundations that construct a critical mind. As a Christian and a scientist, I could stomach the secular nature of public schools and their woefully inadequate scientific curricula, but I can not accept the removal of philosophic debate, and the apparent turning away from the superior nature of exposure to classic educational principals. If a child learns to think, when it comes time to decide on the real matters in life, he/she will be prepared. If a child simply learns pacifism and how to make sure everyone feels good, they may go far in science, business, or literature with natural talent, but they are not prepared to think critically. My intelligent Designer intends for each and every person to find fulfillment, and socialized liberalism in our education system is a poor substitute.

For the end, I leave you with this crackpot rumination. We are different from the beasts, and we have access to a amazing source of life. The real intelligence in the design is that access. The primary concern is finding life, promoting life, and preserving life. Science is a huge gift to man, yet it is God's afterthought in comparison to the overriding design. A designer without limitation of time, and unconstrained by physical laws, could create anything imaginable, yet the real intent is the ability to connect to perfection. To see free will choose life. To see perfect life grow and flourish. Hence, there is no intelligent dinosaur, simply not part of the plan.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Hedonistic Apologists and the Separation of Sex and State

(rereleased from redstate archive)

What is one of the main tenets of the Church of Social Humanists? In general it is the pursuit of the universal pleasure. That each individual would receive equal resources, achieve the same 'happiness', and be free to obtain that which satisfies. It is intended to please everyone. The pursuit of pleasure universally. In fact it would be safe to say that it is the promotion of the pleasure state. Allowing (forcing) each individually the equal opportunity to experience that which is pleasing. But has this religion encroached upon the Constitution of the United States? Has our Judiciary become biased towards a particular belief system?The Oxford dictionary, great tome of wisdom, gives as a definition of Hedonism: "The doctrine or theory of ethics in which pleasure is regarded as the chief good, or the proper end of action." Now in defense of the Church, we can dichotomize this theory into two separate positions, one of the egoist in search of only personal pleasure, and that of the universalistic who intends pleasure for all. The more clear comparison to the philosophy of the Church of Social Humanists is that of the global hedonist. Notice how we have not tread down the path of depravity yet? It is simply comparisons of accurate definitions, and labeling the actions of a modern political group.

Before I get to the core argument, we better deal with Liberals. The label that is liberal has changed over the course of time, just as the term conservative has. What we are dealing with here is not a discussion of the label, just an exploration of the modern philosophy and position. My contention is that within the political basket of those who could be considered modern liberals, a significant number are secular humanists. An additional subset of liberals, though not necessarily the equivalent set, are those who in action or name are socialists. Merge these together and you have the Church of Social Humanists. Yes, I call it a religion, as they have strayed into the reality of simply believing what they want, and acting upon that. They exercise faith in fitting what they are told into what they feel is right, and coming up with what they perceive as reality. This becomes the religion that they practice. Though not openly stated, humanity is the Deity they end up worshiping.

Now as a very accepting and universally open minded religion, so long as you agree with them, there are many expressions of faith. The one we will deal with today is the matter of copulation. The Church supports the position of promoting copulation amongst believers and non-believers. It is a pleasurable experience and should not be denied anyone. Also, the Church does not believe that this sacred act should be limited to specific social institutions such as marriage. That is against the goal of the equality of pleasure.

At this point, have I stretched the truth? I have qualified most of the argument, and tried to apply accurate interpretation to the actions of some Liberals. To reinforce before we make complete the argument, take an example. Ask a liberal (modern) some general questions about copulation. How do they feel about teenage exploratory sexuality? Is it wrong? Ask about swinging around in college. Is that wrong? These questions tend to expose what the liberal "believes" in regards to this issue. There are no facts necessary to establish moral behavior in this topic. Most moral institutions elevate copulation to a covenant between a man and a woman in the social institution of marriage. Those same institutions do not legislate this behavior in the modern age. However they aggressively promote this standard as a higher one and arguably more civilized.

Not so for the Church of Social Humanism. This religious institution has infiltrated the legal system and forced the promotion of its beliefs on the general population. The Judge has become an apologist for the hedonists. The primary target of their legal actions is the public school. It started with the erasure of gender differences and continued with the emasculation of the male. Now it has taken the overt action of promotion of "safe sex", which includes a very broad definition of what constitutes acceptable sexual behavior. They have begun to legally force their religious views on younger children as well to establish "normalcy". This violates not only the child's personal choice of moral behavior (which is still forming), but invalidates the teaching and modeling of accepted behavior by the parent.

Does this obvious promotion of religious beliefs constitute state promotion of religion? Must we force the left to acknowledge that their opinions have become beliefs, and that their actions constitute a practice of those beliefs? Or can we operate under this reality without the overt self declaration of their religion? Clearly the actions of this religious group are in violation of the Constitution. A clear violation of the Separation of Sex and State. We must identify those in the judiciary who are letting their activism lead them to become Hedonistic Apologists. Conservatives should begin to shine light on these actions and label them for what they are. Social Humanism can constitute a religious faith as strong as any other. And if we don't want a state sponsored religion, we need to act soon, at least in regards to copulation.

Mainstream Propaganda Gets Busted and Liberal Ignorance

Today's exchange revolves around the Reuters story of doctored photographs. Follow the links if you are not familiar with the story. Here is evidence of how dense the liberal mentality is, and how they really can not comprehend the blog world. The original provocation took this form:
Lemme see if I got today's news summary right.....
1. Between the war in the Middle East and rot in Alaska, the price of a barrel of oil will quickly go past $80. (We'll ignore the role of wasteful consumption for the moment.) The BBC is forecasting $86!
2. Israel is busy rounding up the Palestinian government....(so there is nobody they CAN talk to....)
3. The Lebanese government has now been completely driven into the arms of the Hez, so much so that they are now appealing to Arab governments for support. (since the West sure ain't gunna help them any!)
4. The Somalia government has dissolved itself....headed for the the extremists are in charge.
5. The US is in the process of abandoning the rest of Iraq to defend Baghdad.....the prelude to collapse.
6. The Brits are about to split from the US and join Europe/France over Lebanon....(about time, too).
Hah, the real news today is the exposure of Reuters shilling for terrorist propaganda, and no MSM reporting of it. Oh, there was a little story of the Lebanese PM downgrading the 'Massacre' from 40 dead to one. I don't get your comment on the Brits, we are hanging with the French on crafting the stupid cease fire, the one that won't happen. Try starting here (The Jawa Report): Doctor Photo
Well, sure nuthing in the news I've seen about any photos. And since ur CCCRW didn't take the time or care, or didn't HAVE a source, there is no way to check is there. But, since it's in a blog it's GOTTA be real, right?! That's the usual far right response we've seen for years now....Well, it COULD have been,so that means it WAS. Take two aspirin and come back when ur sober. Guess that means that the US vassel state isn't bombing the hell outta Lebanon's all a fake....nobody really dieing.

Ya, the PM got a bad report report on the bombing, but, you'll note,unlike SOME people we could mention, like the US Marine Corps, he came out instantly with a correction and set the record straight.

On the Brits. Apparently the US and France are really some way from agreeing on troops and when....the US still insisting that we wait until the vassal state.....I mean Israel.....wins a 'great victory'. Gunna be a long wait! The Brits, on the other hand, are moving to the European solution of a cease fire sooner rather than later. The big hang up seems to be do you do a cease fire and then move in, or move in and force a cease fire. ( I vote for the later...move in in force, a couple of divisions, infantry, tanks, big guns, airforce, kick the hez and israel out at the same time, restore Lebanesse control. No rockets, no bombing, period. Trouble is, to do that the US must agree to push real real hard on the vassel state....and we are not about to do that....therefore, another failure of US policy in the Middle East is taking place.

Geez, u gotta stop reading that shit on the blogs.....drivel. Like their information is somehow magically better and their opinions somehow informed.....
Uh, you didn't even look at the pictures did you? Or follow the links.... Reuters has had to remove some hundreds of this guys pictures, and fire him. Gee, why did they do that if its just some stupid blog? Actually, three independent blogs have discovered doctored separate photos. Did you even read the article? How about the 'poor distraught woman' who apparently owns multiple houses? Yeah, good question, why have you not seen anything about it in the MSM? Hmmm, maybe they know that they run with anti Semitic propaganda all the time, and this story just doesn't fit the action line. The funny thing in this is your poo pooing a blog, that has accurate speculation, with clear facts, that doesn't claim to be news, just commentary, in deference to a Hollowed News Outlet, that put out doctored photos. Welcome to the new media! You obviously didn't follow any links, so have a gander at some more fun:

Ynet coverage
Photo Doc Sacked

Now, as to your solution, are you suggesting that some as yet to be determined force (comprised of what army?) will fight Hez? Yeah, that's a good one. So, this cease fire, who is going to force Hez to disarm again? They want a cease fire for sure, have to resupply sometime. And there is no way they will just roll over. Gee, maybe Kofi could go negotiate with them, legitimize them, and further stab the Israelis in the back, as the UN is want to do. Good idea.

Well, as I indicated in the intro, it amazes me that, when stared in the face with obvious facts, liberals will stick there heads in the sand simply because they don't like the source. It is a clear case of the Rather syndrome.

Monday, July 31, 2006

Answering The Mideast Mayhem Liberal Globalist

Lets examine a line of questioning:
So, why hasn't US worked for immediate cease-fire?
Uh, lets see. Hez is a terrorist organization. With the express purpose of removing the state of Israel from the map. What idiot thinks that you will be able to stop them from attacking? Oh, wait, those cease fires worked great before. Gee, Hez sure appreciated Israel pulling back to its own border. What good is a immediate cease fire? Except to make anti-Semitic peaceniks in the UN feel good about themselves. Hey, maybe there is a Nobel Peace idiot prize available for someone here.... Bet Kofi wants one.
Ah, for some the world is so simple. Alas, it is not simple. You didn't answer the question. The answer is, of course, the forlorn hope that either the Israeli bombing will destroy much of Hezbollah, or, that the bombing of civilians will turn them against the Hez. Neither one has ever happened, and won't happen now. Instead, every bomb makes more Hez supporters in Lebanon, which also means more advantage for Syria and indirectly Iran. Once again, there is no military solution to the problem. The UN/NATO/Arab League or whatever needs to work up nerve enough to physically separate the warring parties while the Arabs pressure Syria and Iran and the US cuts off Israel. The US remains the key to the Middle East because only the US can force Israel to the bargaining table. But the US won't do that and won't go to the diplomatic table because 'we don't talk to terrorists!" Well, sooner or later we WILL talk to terrorists, because that is the only way left. So....separate the warring parties and put together a peace conference with the US exerting the necessary arm twisting to get Israel to support a Palestinian state. Start to isolate the extremists instead of creating more of them. Move Israel back to pre-1967 borders, with guarantees by the US and others. I hope its clear that Israel over reacted to all this. Why the US can't see the trend of the recent few years escapes me: Palestine elected Hamas, Lebanon elects many Hezbollah, Egypt elected many Muslim Brotherhood, Iran lost it's moderate government and on and on. All because the US withdrew from the peace process in 2001 and became nutzo after Sept 11. Remember, Egypt and Jordon DO recognize the state of Israel.....and others will too.
Come on, derisive tripe. The population suffering the most casualties in these areas has already been warned multiple times be Israel to leave. Now, the evil Hez apparently place high value on making sure that they operate near civilians for the express purpose of exploiting those casualties. Nasty little men aren't they? Where are all the calls for war crimes against Hez? It is against the Geneva convention to intentionally fire upon civilians (ala Hez rockets) and equally wrong to use civilians as shields. Crickets chirping at the UN on that one.

Now, to counter the stupid notion of creating more Hez, did we create more Nazis by bombing Dresden? How about more fanatical Imperial Kamikaze troops by firebombing Tokyo? What is unreachable to the the peacenik is that we will not ever succeed in talking to terrorists simply for the fact that that is part of their strategy. They will say anything, but it won't stop their plan. It is asinine to 'open up a dialog' with a group that is not going to change its stated purpose of the destruction of Israel. This idea that you can isolate them is equally juvenile. The only way they will be isolated is if Lebanon somehow cracks down on them and Iran (Syria) stops supporting them. No UN force will sustain any casualties, and the Hez will just exploit them, so cross that little answer off the list. Lebanon does not have the will or strength to do it and Iran is hell bent on world destruction at some point, so this is not a fight you will win diplomatically.

The final point is what really exposes the myopic and cancerous view of the peacenik left, namely the meme "its all our fault". We 'withdrew' from the peace process. How stupid is that? Maybe we need to invite some terrorists to the White House. I mean, Clinton sure created a lasting peace by diologing with Arafat. We went 'nutzo' after 9/11. So, the only people who are "sane" are a bunch of 9/10 liberal peaceniks? It is amazing that something so obvious can be rejected completely by a whole political philosophy. The real war apparently is between those who recognize the threat to humanity from Islamofascist and the intelligentsia who don't. It is going to take more strikes in Europe before there is a change. That is my prediction.

Friday, July 28, 2006

Keeping Up With the Demented Anti-War Elitists

More mail, more stupidity. Tell me what you think of the platform of the liberal with a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. The excerpt in the email comes from a TomsDispatch post, and is a preview of a upcoming Jonathan Schell article. Lets have some fun:
Well, here's a pretty good, if brief, summary of the way 'us liberals' see the current administration.

Anyone who wants to write about the constitutional crisis unfolding in the United States today faces a peculiar problem at the outset. There is a large body of observations that at one and the same time have been made too often and yet not often enough - too often because they have been repeated to the point of tedium for a minority ready to listen, but not often enough because the general public has yet to consider them seriously enough.

The problem for a self-respecting writer is that the act of writing almost in its nature promises something new. Repetition is not really writing but propaganda - not illumination for the mind but a mental beating. Here are some examples of the sort of observations I have in mind, at once over-familiar and unheard:

President George W Bush sent US troops into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but they weren't there. He said Saddam Hussein's regime had given help to al-Qaeda, but it had not.

He therefore took the nation to war on the basis of falsehoods.

His administration says the torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere has been the work of a few bad apples in the military, whereas in fact abuses were sanctioned at the highest levels of the executive branch in secret memos.

His administration lambastes leakers, but its own officials illegally leaked the name of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Plame, to discredit her husband politically.

He flatly stated to the public that all wiretaps of Americans were ordered pursuant to court warrants, whereas in fact he was authorizing and repeatedly reauthorizing warrantless wiretaps. These wiretaps violated a specific law of Congress forbidding them.

His administration has asserted a right to imprison Americans as well as foreigners indefinitely without the habeas corpus hearings required by law.

Wars of aggression, torture, domestic spying and arbitrary arrest are the hallmarks of dictatorship, yet Congress, run by the president's party, has refused to conduct full investigations into either the false WMD claims, or the abuses and torture, or the warrantless wiretaps, or the imprisonment without habeas corpus.

When Congress passed a bill forbidding torture and the president signed it, he added a "signing statement" implying a right to disregard its provisions when they conflicted with his interpretation of his powers.

The president's secret legal memos justifying the abuses and torture are based on a conception of the powers of the executive that gives him carte blanche to disregard specific statutes as well as international law in the exercise of self-granted powers to the commander-in-chief nowhere mentioned in the constitution.

If accepted, these claims would fundamentally alter the structure of the US government, upsetting the system of checks and balances and nullifying fundamental liberties, including guarantees in the Fourth Amendment to the constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantees of due process. As such, they embody apparent failures of the president to carry out his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States".

March on, George, to the death of the Republic and the end of Liberty.

First thing to point out is the incredible smug derision of the American public by the statement that we have yet to take these constitutional challenges 'seriously enough'. Not only is he a prig, but a stupid one at that. Can't see the threat of Islamofascism first off, then accuses the general public of being stupid for not agreeing with his position. Gee Johnathan, maybe the general public DOES see the real threat, and HAS made a choice. Suck it up dope. After establishing himself as much smarter than the rest of us, he then proceeds to parrot a whole list of "Truth as I Told it" leftist inanities. What is amazing is that these people actually tell each other this stuff over and over again until it is gospel in their liberal religion. A most remarkable phenomena.

If you boil down every statement though, it clearly hinges on Bush hatred and nothing else. They have no vision of what America faces, no memory of how many times we have been attacked, and no solution for any problem at all. They just want their comfy power back. The whole position is symptomatic of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), and very sad. Another amazing point regarding this current mindset of liberals is that they can not seem to get control of themselves. BDS has pushed them so far off base that they can't even see the changing landscape of American politics. What happened to the days of Clinton having his finger in the air? He was a 'poll'-itician that garnered success. No more for the Donkey club. They can't even decide amongst themselves about whether to support the war or not. And for the most part, simply because they are worried about individual districts. They really don't act like we are at war. Short sighted, ignorant political hacks who have lost their emotional compass. Fixated on Bush, obsessed with one man. Bush, the devil of the liberal religion. Everything he does is pure evil. Demented Elitists indeed!

I have to jump to the end of the Schell article not included in the email.
Can this pattern be broken? Voices are already being heard advising that the opposition to the Iraq War and the failed vision it embodies should, with the next election in mind, now embrace a generalized new readiness to use force. But that way lies only a new chapter in the sorry history of the pitiful, helpless giant.
The pattern he speaks of is a absurd creation of his mind where the government becomes more or less totalitarian based on the results of fighting wars both real and in the media. So, he complains about the Iraq failure, and that that will lead to a easier use of force. And somehow that links to the next election, where he apparently doesn't think his peacnik friends stand much chance of gaining control. Anyhow, tho point of the above is his perception of pitiful America, the helpless giant, and its sorry history. Pleasant fellow, so upbeat and full of hope! Go move to France and get it over with. Be the inner socialist! Live the life of the peacenik cult in its true form! I leave you with the thought that eloquence combined with inanity come in strange packages. But a cure for BDS has yet to be found.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Dealing With More Liberal Idiocy

I have left this one on the back burner for a while, as they don't even rate mention. But, as more than one person has been led here, I will address it. I speculated about the quantification of violence and liberals propensity for making horrific claims about our soldiers in the aptly titled "Al Qaida Just a Crime Wave?" What grand humor. Alas, there are those who laugh only at the destruction of our traditions, society, and unborn. The link in question is from a blog entitled "Intelligent Discontent". Notice anything amiss? The truly intelligent would not name their blog 'adjective' 'adjective'. Try this one, "Vapid Soreness". Or how about "Compulsive Expletive"? Anyhow, they make a vain attempt at sarcasm, then parade out gruesome photos of dead Iraqi civilians, babies included. Of course war is horrible, I loath the destruction. But where, oh enlightened lib, are your pictures of the hundreds of dead children at the hands of terrorists? Where are your pictures of the millions of dead fetuses from your abortion mills? You are responsible for their deaths, are you not?

Should we leave Iraq, and its innocent, to the hands of Islamofascists? You want a policy that will virtually guaranty the subjugation of millions, let alone the prospect of another killing fields? All so that you can gain political power? Or absolve your guilt? Juvenile imbeciles, that would be a better name. I apologize for my readers in not linking up to this material. If you really care, you can find it. But don't bother. Alright, enough ranting, thanks for your patience.

Things Jihadists Don't Like

Or, one thing they don't like. Me. Yes, I got a great comment on my piece about the jihad junkies and their cyber war. What inspired this 'anonymous' dupe to put finger on keys in anger is unknown. How is life in Turkey? But, I got a nice surprise, when the referring page is Goog's blog search of cyber hack. At least I make the front page of something. What is life like filled with hate? One thing jihadists certainly have in common with liberals...

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Liberal Solution for Somalia

I get this in the mailbag:
So, us Liberals Lefties want to know,
Why was the Scrub and the CIA
Shoveling money and guns
To the Somali Warlords
What killed our Marines!
Poetic to say the least! Could be a bit on the wailing and gnashing of teeth side, but I stoically ignored the barb and soldiered on:

That is a disingenuous question, in that it is not the same warlords that killed our men. But, I ask myself the same question, what in the world are we doing? More importantly, why in the hell does the U.N., who is supposedly the wise example setter and caring institution in all things Africa, totally ignore this? I don't get it. And the Euros certainly shouldn't want another terrorist training ground, whats up? You wouldn't be happy with anything Bush does. But apart from that, what should be done there? No government, no economy, no security. What do you do?
Ah, well.
I'd sit down with Kofi and work a deal. The UN contacts the new Somalia government and sees if they need a little UN help. Ya know, food, medical, transport, etc etc on a small scale and building up. But, set some expectations. We'll supply this stuff as long as you respect human rights, no mass killings, don't harbor terrorists etc etc. Work out a quid pro quo....backstage, quietly, diplomatically. Keep the Americans out of it! We should support this, a lot. Give it a few years. Ask to appoint a low level diplomatic mission. No big rush. Patience....

Matter of fact.
That's about how I'd deal with most Islamic governments. Don't give them a reason to turn to the hardliners. Make it easy to be moderate. Try to get along. Talk, a lot. Listen even more. Solve the Palestine issue. Take your time. Find a way. Compromise. Everything is on the table to be TALKED about, but there are some things we WON'T DO. But, you give a little, we'll give a little.
Wow, that tells me a lot. In other words, you have no plan. Oh, wait, you want to give aid to terrorist supporting 'warlords' so long as they promise to be good. I guess you would have to throw in some security dough as well. Oh, wait, that sounds like the Bush plan, only no filthy American influence. Hey, I bet there is some good graft to be made in your plan. Join the U.N., get billions for your home country and a little on the side for yourself. Yeah, great plan. Has worked real well in the past. You have correctly expressed the true blindness of the liberal socialist. Thanks.

That is it, hope everyone enjoys the restatement of the obvious!