Looking out for your fellow Americans, how noble sm
Posted By: To all Obama supporters on 2008-09-23
In Reply to: your answer to the post was - andromedica
Did you figure out how to spell McCain yet?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
To my fellow Americans.....
we are all screwed. I don't think any one in government has a clue what is the right thing to do and the ones who do won't say anything as it might go against their party and who would want to do that. If one party has a good idea, the other party refuses to vote for it because it wasn't their party and let's face it.....neither party wants the other one to look good. Government is going to stick it to us again so we might as well be prepared and get the vaseline out for a little bit of lube.
what about the noble war?
dont they feel COMPELLED to join on their own?
Now, that's very noble of you and if you have never judged..sm
anything or anyone good for you. But you are coming to the defense of a woman who not only judges people, but is in a position to spread her ideals to millions. You have shown more vigor on this thread than you have on any of the other threads, and I know it was the F-word or maybe even the word devil that got your blood boiling.
You ask about Ward Churchill, and all I can say is it's too bad he feels the way he does about his country. I can't discount his feelings, but it is too bad he feel that way. He was wrong in indicating that the people in the twin towers somehow deserved what they got, dead wrong.
Now one reason why he doesn't bother me as much as Ann is because she has stereotyped *liberals* of which I fall in that category.
thats real noble of ya why then
did you post a list of inflammatory statements about race out of any context whatsoever.
I commend you on your noble efforts...
but I say again...unless you direct your rhetoric toward the people who obviously are in direct opposition to your way of thinking (terrorists) and changing their minds...ohhh, but you said didn't you...leave it to God to change their minds while you concentrate on your fellow Americans, i.e., preach to the choir, the safe and warm route. That makes any real committment to peace, as you say you have, appear very hollow to me. But, I am sure as with Sarandon, Penn, and the Code Pink ladies, they rather prefer their heads attached to their shoulders and protesting in the comfort of a free country paid for by the blood of patriots, rather than taking their cause to the real enemies of this country. Whereas you have said you don't care if someone cuts your head off...I daresay the above mentioned would not share that sentiment.
And as a side note, Hanoi Jane, in my opinion, should be in a jail cell for treason.
I commend you on your charitable works and have said so before. However, that was not and never has been the basis of the criticism. I have said in posts before that I commend your charitable work, and I have, as I said I would, looked into service dogs for disabled vets. But what I do or do not do is not at issue here, as I am not using it as a badge to tell everyone how good I am or how committed I am. You seem to want to enumerate that for me to somehow take the attention away from the core issue I was trying to address....
...I was talking specifically about the *peace* movement, and why you and others do not take the *peace* movement to the real enemies of peace. Unless of course you believe that your fellow Americans are more an enemy of peace than the terrorists are. Which is probably true...when Democrats when polled 49% say they do not want the surge to succeed and 51% say they are not sure they want the surge to succeed. That says it all in my opinion. All that tells me is that 49% of Democrats polled are antiAmerican and 51% have not as yet decided for America or against her.
Have a good day.
Hey Libby, where's all the noble rich people?
Sure is a shame all those rich guys can't spring a buck for the effort. And where is the Republican base? - the pro-war screamers can't seem to put their money where their mouths are any more than they can bring themselves to enlist for the cause. Let somebody else do it, seems to be their motto!
Hey, Bush, sign your daughters up for Iraq, such a *noble* cause
Like George did, the new generation of Bushes let other Americans do the dying for them.
Bush has derided the mothers and fathers of our nation's war dead for not wanting any more young American men and women to die in Iraq. We owe them [the already killed and wounded soldiers] something, he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion, according to Maureen Dowd). We will finish the task that they gave their lives for.
 BUSH EXTENDED FAMILY PHOTO taken January 20, 2005 |
Yet, not one -- not one -- of any of Bush's children or his nieces and nephews have volunteered for service in any branch of the military or volunteered to serve in any capacity in Iraq. Not one of them has felt the cause was noble enough to put his or her life on the line.
Here is the full list of the children of Bush and his siblings who have chosen to let other young men and women -- mostly poor, rural and minorities -- die for them, because they have no desire to die for George W. Bush's alleged noble cause (assuming an eligible age of 17 with parental consent to join the military):
Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush
George P. Bush
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.
Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush
Marshall Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch
Samuel LeBlond
Ellie LeBlond
Here is the complete chart:
Furthermore, not one of George's siblings served in the military when they were eligible, and Bush got a cozy stateside position in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid risking his life in another noble war, Vietnam.
Why do George W. Bush, his siblings, and their children think that the war is noble enough for kids like Casey Sheehan to die in, but not them?
Sign this petition, demanding that the Bush sibling children serve in George's noble war or he must bring the troops home now. Because if it's not noble enough for the Bush family to risk their lives fighting for, it's just a disastrous graveyard for poor and middle class Americans, dug deep to advance Bush's partisan agenda.
Bush can be brave with other people's children, because he has nothing personally to risk.
Bush tell your daughters they are needed in Iraq for a *noble* cause
Oh really, going off the deep end, LOL..by asking Bush and his daughters and other young people in his family to sign up for duty in Iraq since the Bush family thinks it is so important and the *Noble* thing to do? And Im going off the deep end, LOL. You are so silly sometimes in your posts. I see nothing wrong in asking the chickenhawk warmongers to urge their children to join up..after all our country is fighting a *war on terrorism*..or..wait a minute..what is the new saying the WH is throwing out there..*a global war on extremists*..or....oh geez..I need to start writing down the reasons for our blood shed in Iraq..I cant remember all the reasons why we pre-emptively invaded Iraq..Cant keep up with the spin cycle of the WH..
Reasons Why Chavez Is Up For Noble Peace Prize
An article published in VHeadline.com on November 26
last year, headlined Venezuela's President Hugo
Chavez Frias proposed for the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize aroused great interest
Since that piece was published, Chavez has continued
his humanitarian projects, the most recent of which
are extending Mission Miracle in alliance with Cuba to
correct blindness and sight disorders to the whole of
the American continent, including the US and the
Caribbean. He has also offered crude oil, gasoline and
heating oil at preferential, financed rates to smaller
Caribbean countries, as well as Uruguay and Paraguay
which are struggling with the sky high price of
energy.
The improvement in cash flow of these countries
generated by the financing aspect at 1% per year,
allows their governments to use this surplus to invest
in social programs.
This initiative has also taken into account poor
communities, schools, hospitals, old peoples homes
facing a predicted brutally cold winter in the United
States ... part of this program includes donations of
heating oil as well as financing part of the
deliveries from CITGO, a 100%-owned US-based
Venezuelan company based in Houston with 8 refineries
delivering to over 14,000 gasoline stations. Pilot
projects will be underway in Chicago and Boston as of
October 14.
As per the Nobel Peace Prize website the 2004 winner
was Wangari Maathai of Kenya for her contribution to
sustainable development, democracy and peace.
If these three qualities are key to winning the Nobel
Peace Prize then Chavez has all these in abundance ...
and more. He must be the world's leading democrat
having been to the polls 9 times since 1998. He
promotes peace by asking for troops out of Afghanistan
and Iraq, so that these sovereign nations can exercise
self-determination and define their own path in the
future.
Other accomplishments, which have been pushed by
Chavez' personal leadership in Venezuela are the
Social Missions, all grouped under the humanitarian
banner of Mision Cristo (Christ's Mission). The most
important of these, Mision Robinson has taught 1.4
million Venezuelans to read and write; Mision Barrio
Adentro (Neighborhood Within) offers free primary
healthcare in the poor areas and is now reaching 14
million Venezuelans out of a population of
approximately 25 million; Mision Mercal sells cheap
staple foods and has impacted more than half the
population at the time of writing.
Chavez, however, is up against some very stiff
competition including Colin Powell (for his efforts to
end the 21-year civil war in Sudan); the ex-governor
of Illinois, George Ryan (for his campaign to abolish
the death sentence in the US); Israeli Mordechai
Vanunu (for denouncing the existence of nuclear
weapons in his country); the Japanese Hidankyo group
(survivors of the US' atomic bombs dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Fellow Arkie
I know where that is! We used to shop in Fort Smith when I was little. From Mena, now south Arkansas. Your part of the country is beautiful. Where the Ouachitas meet the Ozarks! 
Hello there fellow vegan
Okay, have to admit I'm not total vegan but am trying. I love beans too. We eats tons of black beans, garbanzo's, and some navy beans and lately been on a homemade split pea soup kick. I do love beans, less meat (we stick to mainly chicken and ham. Although I still won't eat a fava bean (mainly because they said it was like a lima bean and lima beans are repulsive to me).
Is that what they laughed about. I had forgotten.
So am trying here to be more vegan myself. There are certain veggies I just cannot get enough of (brussel sprouts for one).
If you have or know of any good recipes or websites of how to transition more veggie I'd love to hear from you. More than welcome to send me an email.
Thanks and let me know how you like the fava beans.
As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either...
and Bush did not lie. While the bill does not explicitly state it will cover families to $83,000, it opens a loophole that will allow New York to again ask for the $82,600 raise and under the new bill would probably get it, because the stipulation preventing it was being removed. So basically what Bush said is true...he should have worded it differently.
Here are some things that were not brought forward that are also bad things about the bill:
Bush had good reason to veto SCHIP
By Grace-Marie Turner
Article Launched: 10/14/2007 01:33:38 AM PDT
Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking in the opinion pages of major newspapers across the country. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids?
Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."
This kind of rhetoric is wrong and misleads readers about the facts of this important issue.
There is no debate over whether to reauthorize the SCHIP program so it can continue to provide insurance to needy children. That's a given. The debate is about whether children in middle-income families should be added.
The president is absolutely right in insisting that SCHIP focus on its core mission of needy children. When SCHIP was created in 1997, the target population was children whose parents earned too much for them to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The president wants the program to focus on children whose families earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In today's dollars, that's $41,300 a year.
About two-thirds of the nation's uninsured children already are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP, but aren't enrolled. Raising the income threshold won't solve this core problem. Congress should require states to focus on the 689,000 children whom the Urban Institute says are uninsured and would be eligible for SCHIP if eligibility were limited to the $41,300 income level.
The other big problem is that, across the country, states are using SCHIP dollars to insure adults.
Fourteen states cover adults through SCHIP, and at least six of them are spending more of their SCHIP dollars on adults than on children. For example, 78 percent of SCHIP enrollees in Minnesota are adults, 79 percent in New Mexico, and 72 percent in Michigan.
With these statistics in mind, the Bush administration issued a ruling in August requiring states to demonstrate that they had enrolled 95 percent of eligible needy children before expanding the program.
Yet the bill that Congress passed, and which the president vetoed, nullifies that ruling and effectively refuses to agree that needy kids should get first preference. Instead, the congressional measure would give $60 billion to the states over five years to enroll millions more "children" - although many of them will, in fact, be adults. Others will be from higher-income families.
New York, for instance, could submit a plan that would add children in families earning up to $83,000 a year to SCHIP. New Jersey could continue to cover kids whose parents make up to $72,000. All the other states would be allowed to cover kids in families with incomes up to $61,000.
Most children in these higher income families are already covered by private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of children in families earning more than twice the poverty line have private health insurance now.
No one doubts that SCHIP is a vitally important program for needy children, and that our nation needs to do a better job of helping working families afford health insurance. But giving the states incentives to add middle-income kids to their SCHIP rolls will prompt families to replace private insurance with taxpayer-provided coverage.
This is completely backward. The goal of SCHIP should be to provide private coverage to uninsured children. If Congress would send the president a bill that does that, he says he would sign it in a minute.
How I hate to disagree with my fellow....
But that is just nonsense. It would do nothing but create anarchy and keep the government so busy rotating presidents in and out of office, that absolutely nothing would get done. I will agree with you that the Bush presidency is one of the worst and that we will be seeing the ramifications of it in the many, many years to come and I am just hoping that he can keep things on an even keel until his term is over. But a no convidence vote? Never.
Not a fellow liberal, just a few things to say...
the National Right to Life Committee is not a religious organization. This from Wikipedia: The National Right to Life Committee is the largest right to life/pro-life organization in the United States with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. The group works through legislation and education to work against abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It was founded in Detroit in 1973 in response to the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade which legalized the practice of abortion in all fifty states. It a non-sectarian, non-partisan group whose founding members included leaders in fields of science, religion, law, ethics and medicine. Its board consist of an elected representative from each of the 50 states and several at-large board members.
It might surprise you to know, there are Democrats, and there are liberals, who are not pro choice. There are Republicans who are pro choice. It is not a political issue. It is a deeply moral, deeply personal issue. In my case, it is tied to my belief in God (not my God, He is everyone's God). Perhaps not so in others. Those who do not have God in their lives, I do not expect them to understand where I am coming from, and I am not trying to force anything down anyone's throat. That is MY personal conviction. In others, perhaps it is tied to their own sense of morality and what to them is right and wrong. That is our right, just as your stand is yours.
I would counter what you say by saying how could you stand up with such strong conviction for the less fortunate, the sick, for all living things EXCEPT the unborn, the most innocent of all? And the helpless? Piglet...who in this world is MORE helpless, more utterly defenseless than an unborn child? Who?
If you have the benevolence to stand up for all the others you mention, why does that not extend to the unborn? Why are they excluded?
How is it different for a woman to deem an unborn child inconvenient and decide to kill it before it is born or partially born, and that is fine, yet let that child be born and she smother it the next day and you would be outraged, or at least I hope you would. How is that right in even a most twisted sense? The plain and simple fact is it is still a dead baby who was murdered. I realize that terms like "Murder" and "Chopped up like salad in a blender" are terms that make people uncomfortable. And well they should. Because that is the stark reality of abortion, choice or not.
In this day and time, in all but the most extreme circumstances (rape, incest, possible death of mother), there are ways to prevent an inconvenient pregnancy. If we stopped performing abortions except in those extreme cases, that would stop 90%, of not more, of all abortions.
REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (<0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition
"personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already 98% (78-99 %)
Not sure where you are going with the deciding how we die thing...unless you are talking about assisted suicide/euthanasia? That slippery slope may lead somewhere you don't want to go...when that decision is taken away from you and given to someone else, to whom you have become inconvenient and a bother and it would be in their best interest that you be dead. Think about that very carefully. And before you say "Oh that would never happen" I am sure that people who made the same comment about abortion never thought it would be legal or commonplace either. The Terri Schiavo case...I just think it would behoove anyone to think very carefully about that particular snowball and do they really want to start it down the hill.
Wouldn't you want your fellow supporters to think for
;?/
LOL...Kind of like saying *my fellow prisoners*..
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
I am concerned for my fellow democrats on this post
Is there possibly anything else you can discuss or raise cane about other than Bush? To say that Bush started the fires in California is just beyond the scope of common sense.
I am not a Bush supporter, never was, never will be....however, not all the ills in the world or in our own country can be blamed on him alone.
I am most astounded by some of these postings, as they don't seem to make much sense and make you sound much less intelligent than I am sure you are.
Blame the people who elected him and blame Congress for not pursuing further investigation, but to keep rehashing it is blarney.
Are you calling your fellow pubs ignorant?:
x
I think Palin IS a scare tactic. She & her fellow
believe in FREEDOM.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of/from Religion.
Freedom of Association.
Pursuit of Happiness.
Marching in lock-step with America's religious Nazis somehow just doesn't fit with what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
You're really worried about your fellow citizens?
because if that were the case, you would be asking him why he continues to let illegals and overseas workers with visas into this country to take those very jobs they report are gone.
You don't know any of this is going on because you don't pay attention to anything unless Obama has said it. If he doesn't tell you illegals are taking these jobs, then you'll just pretend they are not. Sorry you don't feel illegals taking our jobs to the tune of 1.5 million right now isn't MORE important than spending more of your money.
Ever stop to think if they didn't have the jobs, Americans would?
Nope....she just stated she was here to post issues for her fellow liberals...
(or he, whichever the case may be), and I just mentioned I had not seen any issues posted. Are YOU the posting police?
And what facts to post....I hope you are really proud of your fellow posters...
right now.
How are Americans going
if they keep being divided and separated? Liberals need to talk to conservatives, libertarians to progressives, etc. Without the exchange, liberals are just going to sit around saying "Bush is bad, this and this were lies" and conservatives "We love Bush, liberals are bad." Ho hum.
Exchange, debate, and yes even arguing are the very spirit of America in a political forum. Good debate makes you keep your facts straight and forces you to really define your beliefs to yourself as well as others. Information for good or bad is exchanged - people learn things they won't learn otherwise from just a bunch of nodding heads.
Who really wants the forums restricted to same-view postings?
*95% of Americans are going to get a
much "phonier" than that! That is just a dribble of a long line.
Many Americans were against the war.....
but their voice didn't count. AND I know of NO ONE who does not support our troops.
What gets MOST AMERICANS
Madame,
Nobody here -- or anywhere else that I know of -- thinks that welfare is "new." What IS NEW is the road to socialism that this country is on at breakneck speed. What IS NEW is the "redistribution of wealth" mentality -- taking the hard-earned incomes of working middle class and giving it to those WHO DO NOT WORK IN THE FORM OF "TAX REBATES," even though they DO NOT PAY TAXES. This is IN ADDITION TO the existing welfare programs, food stamps, Section 8 housing, etc. The middle class are SICK AND TIRED of being TAXED TO DEATH TO SUBSIDIZE LOSERS. And that goes DOUBLE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Why are Americans so angry?
Why Are Americans So Angry?
by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul
       
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, June 29, 2006
I have been involved in politics for over 30 years and have never seen the American people so angry. It’s not unusual to sense a modest amount of outrage, but it seems the anger today is unusually intense and quite possibly worse than ever. It’s not easily explained, but I have some thoughts on this matter. Generally, anger and frustration among people are related to economic conditions; bread and butter issues. Yet today, according to government statistics, things are going well. We have low unemployment, low inflation, more homeowners than ever before, and abundant leisure with abundant luxuries. Even the poor have cell phones, televisions, and computers. Public school is free, and anyone can get free medical care at any emergency room in the country. Almost all taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners. The lower 50% pay essentially no income taxes, yet general dissatisfaction and anger are commonplace. The old slogan “It’s the economy, stupid,” just doesn’t seem to explain things.
Some say it’s the war, yet we’ve lived with war throughout the 20th century. The bigger they were the more we pulled together. And the current war, by comparison, has fewer American casualties than the rest. So it can’t just be the war itself.
People complain about corruption, but what’s new about government corruption? In the 19th century we had railroad scandals; in the 20th century we endured the Teapot Dome scandal, Watergate, Koreagate, and many others without too much anger and resentment. Yet today it seems anger is pervasive and worse than we’ve experienced in the past.
Could it be that war, vague yet persistent economic uncertainty, corruption, and the immigration problem all contribute to the anger we feel in America? Perhaps, but it’s almost as though people aren’t exactly sure why they are so uneasy. They only know that they’ve had it and aren’t going to put up with it anymore.
High gasoline prices make a lot of people angry, though there is little understanding of how deficits, inflation, and war in the Middle East all contribute to these higher prices.
Generally speaking, there are two controlling forces that determine the nature of government: the people’s concern for their economic self-interests; and the philosophy of those who hold positions of power and influence in any particular government. Under Soviet Communism the workers believed their economic best interests were being served, while a few dedicated theoreticians placed themselves in positions of power. Likewise, the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution were few, but rallied the colonists to risk all to overthrow a tyrannical king.
Since there’s never a perfect understanding between these two forces the people and the philosophical leaders and because the motivations of the intellectual leaders vary greatly, any transition from one system of government to another is unpredictable. The communist takeover by Lenin was violent and costly; the demise of communism and the acceptance of a relatively open system in the former Soviet Union occurred in a miraculous manner. Both systems had intellectual underpinnings.
In the United States over the last century we have witnessed the coming and going of various intellectual influences by proponents of the free market, Keynesian welfarism, varieties of socialism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy we’ve seen a transition from the founder’s vision of non-intervention in the affairs of others to internationalism, unilateral nation building, and policing the world. We now have in place a policy, driven by determined neo-conservatives, to promote American “goodness” and democracy throughout the world by military force – with particular emphasis on remaking the Middle East.
We all know that ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas, even when supported naďvely by the people, will have bad results. Could it be the people sense, in a profound way, that the policies of recent decades are unworkable – and thus they have instinctively lost confidence in their government leaders? This certainly happened in the final years of the Soviet system. Though not fully understood, this sense of frustration may well be the source of anger we hear expressed on a daily basis by so many.
No matter how noble the motivations of political leaders are, when they achieve positions of power the power itself inevitably becomes their driving force. Government officials too often yield to the temptations and corrupting influences of power.
But there are many others who are not bashful about using government power to do “good.” They truly believe they can make the economy fair through a redistributive tax and spending system; make the people moral by regulating personal behavior and choices; and remake the world in our image using armies. They argue that the use of force to achieve good is legitimate and proper for government – always speaking of the noble goals while ignoring the inevitable failures and evils caused by coercion.
Not only do they justify government force, they believe they have a moral obligation to do so.
Once we concede government has this “legitimate” function and can be manipulated by a majority vote, the various special interests move in quickly. They gain control to direct government largesse for their own benefit. Too often it is corporate interests who learn how to manipulate every contract, regulation, and tax policy. Likewise, promoters of the “progressive” agenda, always hostile to property rights, compete for government power through safety, health, and environmental initiatives. Both groups resort to using government power – and abuse this power – in an effort to serve their narrow interests. In the meantime, constitutional limits on power and its mandate to protect liberty are totally forgotten.
Since the use of power to achieve political ends is accepted, pervasive, and ever expanding, popular support for various programs is achieved by creating fear. Sometimes the fear is concocted out of thin air, but usually it’s created by wildly exaggerating a problem or incident that does not warrant the proposed government “solution.” Often government caused the problem in the first place. The irony, of course, is that government action rarely solves any problem, but rather worsens existing problems or creates altogether new ones.
Fear is generated to garner popular support for the proposed government action, even when some liberty has to be sacrificed. This leads to a society that is systemically driven toward fear – fear that gives the monstrous government more and more authority and control over our lives and property.
Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people.
Environmentalists go back and forth, from warning about a coming ice age to arguing the grave dangers of global warming.
It is said that without an economic safety net – for everyone, from cradle to grave – people would starve and many would become homeless.
It is said that without government health care, the poor would not receive treatment. Medical care would be available only to the rich.
Without government insuring pensions, all private pensions would be threatened.
Without federal assistance, there would be no funds for public education, and the quality of our public schools would diminish – ignoring recent history to the contrary.
It is argued that without government surveillance of every American, even without search warrants, security cannot be achieved. The sacrifice of some liberty is required for security of our citizens, they claim.
We are constantly told that the next terrorist attack could come at any moment. Rather than questioning why we might be attacked, this atmosphere of fear instead prompts giving up liberty and privacy. 9/11 has been conveniently used to generate the fear necessary to expand both our foreign intervention and domestic surveillance.
Fear of nuclear power is used to assure shortages and highly expensive energy.
In all instances where fear is generated and used to expand government control, it’s safe to say the problems behind the fears were not caused by the free market economy, or too much privacy, or excessive liberty.
It’s easy to generate fear, fear that too often becomes excessive, unrealistic, and difficult to curb. This is important: It leads to even more demands for government action than the perpetrators of the fear actually anticipated.
Once people look to government to alleviate their fears and make them safe, expectations exceed reality. FEMA originally had a small role, but its current mission is to centrally manage every natural disaster that befalls us. This mission was exposed as a fraud during last year’s hurricanes; incompetence and corruption are now FEMA’s legacy. This generates anger among those who have to pay the bills, and among those who didn’t receive the handouts promised to them quickly enough.
Generating exaggerated fear to justify and promote attacks on private property is commonplace. It serves to inflame resentment between the producers in society and the so-called victims, whose demands grow exponentially.
The economic impossibility of this system guarantees that the harder government tries to satisfy the unlimited demands, the worse the problems become. We won’t be able to pay the bills forever, and eventually our ability to borrow and print new money must end. This dependency on government will guarantee anger when the money runs out. Today we’re still able to borrow and inflate, but budgets are getting tighter and people sense serious problems lurking in the future. This fear is legitimate. No easy solution to our fiscal problems is readily apparent, and this ignites anger and apprehension.
Disenchantment is directed at the politicians and their false promises, made in order to secure reelection and exert power that so many of them enjoy.
It is, however, in foreign affairs that governments have most abused fear to generate support for an agenda that under normal circumstances would have been rejected. For decades our administrations have targeted one supposed “Hitler” after another to gain support for military action against a particular country. Today we have three choices termed the axis of evil: Iran, Iraq or North Korea.
We recently witnessed how unfounded fear was generated concerning Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction to justify our first pre-emptive war. It is now universally known the fear was based on falsehoods. And yet the war goes on; the death and destruction continue.
This is not a new phenomenon. General Douglas MacArthur understood the political use of fear when he made this famous statement:
“Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.”
We should be ever vigilant when we hear the fear mongers preparing us for the next military conflict our young men and women will be expected to fight. We’re being told of the great danger posed by Ahmadinejad in Iran and Kim Jung Il in North Korea. Even Russia and China bashing is in vogue again. And we’re still not able to trade with or travel to Cuba. A constant enemy is required to expand the state. More and more news stories blame Iran for the bad results in Iraq. Does this mean Iran is next on the hit list?
The world is much too dangerous, we’re told, and therefore we must be prepared to fight at a moment’s notice regardless of the cost. If the public could not be manipulated by politicians’ efforts to instill needless fear, fewer wars would be fought and far fewer lives would be lost.
Fear and Anger over Iraq
Though the American people are fed up for a lot of legitimate reasons, almost all polls show the mess in Iraq leads the list of why the anger is so intense.
Short wars, with well-defined victories, are tolerated by the American people even when they are misled as to the reasons for the war. Wars entered into without a proper declaration tend to be politically motivated and not for national security reasons. These wars, by their very nature, are prolonged, costly, and usually require a new administration to finally end them. This certainly was true with the Korean and Vietnam wars. The lack of a quick military success, the loss of life and limb, and the huge economic costs of lengthy wars precipitate anger. This is overwhelmingly true when the war propaganda that stirred up illegitimate fears is exposed as a fraud. Most soon come to realize the promise of guns and butter is an illusion. They come to understand that inflation, a weak economy, and a prolonged war without real success are the reality.
The anger over the Iraq war is multifaceted. Some are angry believing they were lied to in order to gain their support at the beginning. Others are angry that the forty billion dollars we spend every year on intelligence gathering failed to provide good information. Proponents of the war too often are unable to admit the truth. They become frustrated with the progress of the war and then turn on those wanting to change course, angrily denouncing them as unpatriotic and un-American.
Those accused are quick to respond to the insulting charges made by those who want to fight on forever without regard to casualties. Proponents of the war do not hesitate to challenge the manhood of war critics, accusing them of wanting to cut and run. Some war supporters ducked military service themselves while others fought and died, only adding to the anger of those who have seen battle up close and question our campaign in Iraq.
When people see a $600 million embassy being built in Baghdad, while funding for services here in the United States is hard to obtain, they become angry. They can’t understand why the money is being spent, especially when they are told by our government that we have no intention of remaining permanently in Iraq.
The bickering and anger will not subside soon, since victory in Iraq is not on the horizon and a change in policy is not likely to occur.
The neoconservative instigators of the war are angry at everyone: at the people who want to get out of Iraq; and especially at those prosecuting the war for not bombing more aggressively, sending more troops, and expanding the war into Iran.
As our country becomes poorer due to the cost of the war, anger surely will escalate. Some of it will be justified.
It seems bizarre that it’s so unthinkable to change course if the current policy is failing. Our leaders are like a physician who makes a wrong diagnosis and prescribes the wrong medicine, but because of his ego can’t tell the patient he made a mistake. Instead he hopes the patient will get better on his own. But instead of improving, the patient gets worse from the medication wrongly prescribed. This would be abhorrent behavior in medicine, but tragically it is commonplace in politics.
If the truth is admitted, it would appear that the lives lost and the money spent have been in vain. Instead, more casualties must be sustained to prove a false premise. If the truth is admitted, imagine the anger of all the families that already have suffered such a burden. That burden is softened when the families and the wounded are told their great sacrifice was worthy, and required to preserve our freedoms and our Constitution.
But no one is allowed to ask the obvious. How have the 2,500 plus deaths, and the 18,500 wounded, made us more free? What in the world does Iraq have to do with protecting our civil liberties here at home? What national security threat prompted American’s first pre-emptive war? How does our unilateral enforcement of UN resolutions enhance our freedoms?
These questions aren’t permitted. They are not politically correct. I agree that the truth hurts, and the questions are terribly hurtful to the families that have suffered so much. What a horrible thought it would be to find out the cause for which we fight is not quite so noble.
I don’t believe those who hide from the truth and refuse to face the reality of the war do so deliberately. The pain is too great. Deep down, psychologically, many are incapable of admitting such a costly and emotionally damaging error. They instead become even greater and more determined supporters of the failed policy.
I would concede that there are some – especially the die-hard neoconservatives, who believe it is our moral duty to spread American goodness through force and remake the Middle East – who neither suffer regrets nor are bothered by the casualties. They continue to argue for more war without remorse, as long as they themselves do not have to fight. Criticism is reserved for the wimps who want to “cut and run.”
Due to the psychological need to persist with the failed policy, the war proponents must remain in denial of many facts staring them in the face.
They refuse to accept that the real reason for our invasion and occupation of Iraq was not related to terrorism.
They deny that our military is weaker as a consequence of this war.
They won’t admit that our invasion has served the interests of Osama Bin Laden. They continue to blame our image problems around the world on a few bad apples.
They won’t admit that our invasion has served the interests of Iran’s radical regime.
The cost in lives lost and dollars spent is glossed over, and the deficit spirals up without concern.
They ridicule those who point out that our relationships with our allies have been significantly damaged.
We have provided a tremendous incentive for Russia and China, and others like Iran, to organize through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They entertain future challenges to our plans to dominate South East Asia, the Middle East, and all its oil.
Radicalizing the Middle East will in the long term jeopardize Israel’s security, and increase the odds of this war spreading.
War supporters cannot see that for every Iraqi killed, another family turns on us – regardless of who did the killing. We are and will continue to be blamed for every wrong done in Iraq: all deaths, illness, water problems, food shortages, and electricity outages.
As long as our political leaders persist in these denials, the war won’t end. The problem is that this is the source of the anger, because the American people are not in denial and want a change in policy.
Policy changes in wartime are difficult, for it is almost impossible for the administration to change course since so much emotional energy has been invested in the effort. That’s why Eisenhower ended the Korean War, and not Truman. That’s why Nixon ended the Vietnam War, and not LBJ. Even in the case of Vietnam the end was too slow and costly, as more then 30,000 military deaths came after Nixon’s election in 1968. It makes a lot more sense to avoid unnecessary wars than to overcome the politics involved in stopping them once started. I personally am convinced that many of our wars could be prevented by paying stricter attention to the method whereby our troops are committed to battle. I also am convinced that when Congress does not declare war, victory is unlikely.
The most important thing Congress can do to prevent needless and foolish wars is for every member to take seriously his or her oath to obey the Constitution. Wars should be entered into only after great deliberation and caution. Wars that are declared by Congress should reflect the support of the people, and the goal should be a quick and successful resolution.
Our undeclared wars over the past 65 years have dragged on without precise victories. We fight to spread American values, to enforce UN resolutions, and to slay supposed Hitlers. We forget that we once spread American values by persuasion and setting an example – not by bombs and preemptive invasions. Nowhere in the Constitution are we permitted to go to war on behalf of the United Nations at the sacrifice of our national sovereignty. We repeatedly use military force against former allies, thugs we helped empower – like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden – even when they pose no danger to us.
The 2002 resolution allowing the president to decide when and if to invade Iraq is an embarrassment. The Constitution authorizes only Congress to declare war. Our refusal to declare war transferred power to the president illegally, without a constitutional amendment. Congress did this with a simple resolution, passed by majority vote. This means Congress reneged on its responsibility as a separate branch of government, and should be held accountable for the bad policy in Iraq that the majority of Americans are now upset about. Congress is every bit as much at fault as the president.
Constitutional questions aside, the American people should have demanded more answers from their government before they supported the invasion and occupation of a foreign country.
Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a Christian nation, yet use their religious beliefs to justify the war. They claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the Muslim infidels. Evidently I have been reading from a different Bible. I remember something about “Blessed are the peacemakers.”
My beliefs aside, Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of “Just War Theory.” This Christian theory emphasizes six criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly the six points are as follows:
- War should be fought only in self-defense;
- War should be undertaken only as a last resort;
- A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority;
- All military responses must be proportional to the threat;
- There must be a reasonable chance of success; and
- A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required.
The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian community.
Some are angry because the war is being fought out of Christian duty, yet does not have uniform support from all Christians. Others are angry because they see Christianity as a religion as peace and forgiveness, not war and annihilation of enemies.
Constitutional and moral restraints on war should be strictly followed. It is understandable when kings, dictators, and tyrants take their people into war, since it serves their selfish interests – and those sent to fight have no say in the matter. It is more difficult to understand why democracies and democratic legislative bodies, which have a say over the issue of war, so readily submit to the executive branch of government. The determined effort of the authors of our Constitution to firmly place the power to declare war in the legislative branch has been ignored in the decades following WWII.
Many members have confided in me that they are quite comfortable with this arrangement. They flatly do not expect, in this modern age, to formally declare war ever again. Yet no one predicts there will be fewer wars fought. It is instead assumed they will be ordered by the executive branch or the United Nations – a rather sad commentary.
What about the practical arguments against war, since no one seems interested in exerting constitutional or moral restraints? Why do we continue to fight prolonged, political wars when the practical results are so bad? Our undeclared wars since 1945 have been very costly, to put it mildly. We have suffered over one hundred thousand military deaths, and even more serious casualties. Tens of thousands have suffered from serious war-related illnesses. Sadly, we as a nation express essentially no concern for the millions of civilian casualties in the countries where we fought.
The cost of war since 1945, and our military presence in over 100 countries, exceeds two trillion dollars in today’s dollars. The cost in higher taxes, debt, and persistent inflation is immeasurable. Likewise, the economic opportunities lost by diverting trillions of dollars into war is impossible to measure, but it is huge. Yet our presidents persist in picking fights with countries that pose no threat to us, refusing to participate in true diplomacy to resolve differences. Congress over the decades has never resisted the political pressures to send our troops abroad on missions that defy imagination.
When the people object to a new adventure, the propaganda machine goes into action to make sure critics are seen as unpatriotic Americans or even traitors.
The military-industrial complex we were warned about has been transformed into a military-media-industrial-government complex that is capable of silencing the dissenters and cheerleading for war. It’s only after years of failure that people are able to overcome the propaganda for war and pressure their representatives in Congress to stop the needless killing. Many times the economic costs of war stir people to demand an end. This time around the war might be brought to a halt by our actual inability to pay the bills due to a dollar crisis. A dollar crisis will make borrowing 2.5 billion dollars per day from foreign powers like China and Japan virtually impossible, at least at affordable interest rates.
That’s when we will be forced to reassess the spending spree, both at home and abroad.
The solution to this mess is not complicated; but the changes needed are nearly impossible for political reasons. Sound free market economics, sound money, and a sensible foreign policy would all result from strict adherence to the Constitution. If the people desired it, and Congress was filled with responsible members, a smooth although challenging transition could be achieved. Since this is unlikely, we can only hope that the rule of law and the goal of liberty can be reestablished without chaos.
We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of peace, friendship, and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe for democracy. We must forget about being the world’s policeman. We should disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building. We must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural resources, private investments, or serve the interest of any foreign government or the United Nations. Our military should be designed for one purpose: defending our national security. It’s time to come home now, before financial conditions or military weakness dictates it.
The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what patriotism means. Today patriotism has come to mean blind support for the government and its policies. In earlier times patriotism meant having the willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of popular perceptions.
Today we constantly hear innuendos and direct insults aimed at those who dare to challenge current foreign policy, no matter how flawed that policy may be. I would suggest it takes more courage to admit the truth, to admit mistakes, than to attack others as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the war in Iraq.
Remember, the original American patriots challenged the abuses of King George, and wrote and carried out the Declaration of Independence.
 Yes Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of anger in this country. Much of it is justified; some of it is totally unnecessary and misdirected. The only thing that can lessen this anger is an informed public, a better understanding of economic principles, a rejection of foreign intervention, and a strict adherence to the constitutional rule of law. This will be difficult to achieve, but it’s not impossible and well worth the effort.
July 1, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
My question to pro-war Americans...sm
I have calmed down a lot from my anti-war stance over the past year. However, I do not agree with what is going on in Iraq. I do not think we should have gone in in the first place and the idea of policing that country the way we have is even more proposterous. Before I am labeled not supporting the troops, which is the usual plan of attack against anti-war people, let me explain.
Before we even went into Iraq, I was totally against preemption there and made no bone about it. For the first year and so after entering Iraq, I still made no bone about the fact that I thought the war was the wrong decision and unfounded. I believed the head inspector's assessment that the WMD in Iraq (pre-war) was minimal to nil, and post-war no evidence has proven him wrong.
Also, as for the postwar connecting the dots from al Quada to Saddam, excuse people for being skeptical of taking any of it serious after every other *reason* for the war has dissipiated right before our eyes without the tiniest of an explanation from our administration.
Through it all, I have spoken my piece, written to congressmen, senators, etc., all while sending cards and sending what I could (a few care packages) to soldiers. I have commented to soldiers online who have shared their stories and told them THANK YOU!! for your service, because no matter how opposed I am to the war, I respect our soldiers. They are braver than many and tougher than most and who am I to denigrade a service that I have not performed in myself?
Why is it that a person who opposes the war is seen as anti-military? And I'm not talking about people who will spit on soldiers or have tastless protests at funerals either. When I speak out against the war, I feel that I am speaking up for a soldier, whether his ideals be in the minority or not, whose voice may otherwise not be heard.
I don't find it ironic that more soldiers get on the record for the war; after all, how many people would get on the record (media, print and broadcast) and blast their employer?
Wacthing the news today has me sad, I'm past being mad. I'm saddened at the state of Iraq, and even sadder that Iraq has become America's baby.
And to turn on the TV set today to hear that our base in Japan has been attacked, and more than 80 people dead from a car bomb in Iraq. Russia has something up their sleeves too. Sounds like WW-III is on the horizon.
Exactly! Coming together as Americans...
and out from under all "labels" is where the answer lies. No one truly believes in Democracy anymore. In days gone by, yes, there would be grousing going up to election, a little grousing after election, then we were all friends again until the next election cycle. All this polarization is ridiculous, and disliking someone strictly on their political stance, and saying silly things like "I have known people like you all my life" and focusing that frustration on one person they don't even know...how silly is that?? I suppose because they can't confront those people in "real life" they come here to unload on strangers. It is truly my way or the highway, and it is that way on BOTH sides. Would it not be wonderful to be Americans first and liberals or conservatives or polka-dotted SECOND?
Native Americans
My ancestors arrived just about in time to fight in the Revolutionary War. My great-grandfather died fighting in the Civil War. Yes, he fought for the South. He was there standing up for what he believed in. Others were there in WWI and WWII. Husband #1 a Marine Medic in Korea and husband #2 in Viet Nam. A nephew headed for Afghanistan in September. Husband #2's grandmother was a Polish immigrant. She learned English and that is what was spoken in her home. He only knows a few Polish words and I guess they are the ones she used when she was plenty angry.
Never once have I heard a Native American complain. We just beat them in to submission. I find the Trail of Tears a whole lot more heart-wrenching than the plight of the Mexican citizens.
We, a nation of LEGAL immigrants, had better start standing up for something or we are definitely going to FALL....hard.
It is not that Americans won't do the jobs...
it is really that they will not do them for the wages given. Unfortunately, we expect a cheap food source, which we get. If farmers have to pay Americans to labor away in fields, they will have to pay more than they do and our food costs will go up. I am actually okay with that. Perhaps retail markup will have to go down some, as well. Coming from California, I know what kind of living conditions migrant famers live in (huge amounts of people in subpar housing, etc.) and understand that Americans WILL do the work, but only for a fair amount of pay.
Those crazy Americans....sm
What our Indian and Pakistani counterparts must think, if they haphazardly happen to click onto this board!!!!!!!
And what about the 30% of Americans who rent?
You know, the ones of us who were responsible enough NOT to buy into a rip-off mortgage we knew we couldn't pay?
Do we get stuck with government cheese? Or is Whoopi-dee-doo going to kick in some of her dough to give us an equitable share in this 'idea' of hers?
Face it, if people hadn't been so greedy, trying to buy homes they couldn't afford, goaded on by left-wing Democrats pushing for ridiculous loans for unqualified minorities, we wouldn't have this huge problem right now.
It's the age of ME-ME-ME-NOW-NOW-NOW. And now the whole country's paying for it.
It's so very sad that millions of Americans ....sm
have blinders on for this man.
If you really and truly feel, that you "deserve" Obama as President.....what the heck....go for it.
You are of the "me, me, me" and "take care of me from cradle to grave" generation, that can't think or do anything for themselves, and want the government to "fix everything for them.
Well, go ahead. Vote that socialist in.
You and so many others will be so sick of him and the other democrats in power, that in two years the Republicans will be voted back in Congress.
And then in four years, the way will be clear for a "real" conservative Republican to come to the forefront, and save your sorry a$$ and everyone else that voted Obama in....by voting in someone who isn't JM.
I can wait four years for a "real" Conservative Republican leader, that will take this country back from the democrat-induced financial disasters of the last decades, and failed social programs that are about to come about, should this Obama be voted in.
I can wait for the right leader.
I hope the country can wait four years for that person, as well.
How seriously should Americans take a campaign
Barack Obama was born in the United States and he is going to be your next president. Get over yourself.
Sad that some Americans always want a quick
nm
Yes, this is a sham that Americans are
nm
Speaking of Americans.........
What they all need to do is not come together and accept whatever a president throws out there. Most Americans doesn't have a clue that BIG government is NOT a good thing. They actually believe the government should take care of them, that the government is to make all decisions for this country. No one ever told them that government is not supposed to be involved in their lives and no, it is not my place to sit back and be all one united group that just lets government ram anything and everything down my throat.
If you want to sit back, hold hands, and sing a little tune, then you do that. I do not care for more government; when has government ever solved a problem? Since when has government ever took your money and done something besides blow it? You think your government knows better than you how to spend your money? You think you should be paying income tax in the first place? Anyone who has fallen for "it's patriotic to pay taxes" garbage is the reason this country is where it is to this day. They hand it all over, sit back and say "we should all unite"......and do what? If you want to unite for something, then unite to tell YOUR government enough already. You don't not want more government, more taxes, more social problems, which is exactly what Obama wants. We've got enough social problems and wasted money. You want more? I don't.
You want to come together, then come together to get government out of our lives. But what do you see? Just the opposite. So many Americans are just to used to having someone else tell them how/what to do, they don't think for themselves anymore and they sit quaking in their boots when they hear a candidate that stands up and says enough government, no more government. It scares them to death because all they know is government interference in their lives. They actually believe that is their government's job, to make all their laws and tell them how to live.
I think Americans have the right to buy where they get value for their money --
You can't blame Americans for buying foreign if it is a better value. The American-owned companies need to make it to where buying American is more lucrative than it is now.
I would rather have American if possible - and yes, I drive an American car - BUT it is not because it is American. My budget is based on getting the cheapest and best deal I can...
I know the implications of letting the companies fail - but it is their own poor management that is doing it. The writing has been on the wall for a long time. They knew they were losing out to foreign companies - why not do something about it before they got to this point? Because they want to continue the same practices they have been doing; you know, the ones that were not working! If you let them fail, someone else will come in and pick up the business and make a go of it. That is the way the world works...
Are you 1 of those classless Americans in the O
nm
Yep. Me and about 70 million other Americans.
x
Americans for America
I understand what you are saying. I just want to see him try, not break his campaign promise. I am hoping he does try. Lou Dobbs book, Exporting America, has a list of companies in the back who offshore, and that list is not complete. It is frightening.
The American Chamber of Commerce does not want to stop offshoring. A poll was taken to see if they should drop the America from their title, as they are not for the American worker. The rich keep lining their pockets while the American worker goes down.
Yes, wonder how long...if ever, Americans will
nm
Concerned for Americans?
Pleeeze! No one can claim to be concerned for the American people and continue to put OUR country trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt while our generations to come continue to pay this criminal behavior on the American people!!!
If you haven't figured out who his PRIMAL concern is for thus far, then it would be pointless to point it out!!
Oh, but the majority of Americans DOES
More than the majority of Americans still support OUR LEADER - thank you very much
Not the WORKING Americans!
@@
All O is doing is trying to stripped Americans of ALL
nm
If Americans Knew..................sm
Copioed from the wesite
'If Americans Knew'
Last Updated July 9, 2008
In the late 1800s a small, fanatic movement called “political Zionism” began in Europe. Its goal was to create a Jewish state somewhere in the world. Its leaders settled on the ancient and long-inhabited land of Palestine for the location of this state.
Over the coming decades Zionist leaders used various strategies to accomplish their goal of taking over Palestine.
This growing violence culminated in Israel's ruthless 1947-49 "War of Independence," in which at least 750,000 Palestinian men, women, and children were expelled from their homes – half of them even before any Arab armies joined the war. At every point in this war, Zionist forces outnumbered Arab forces. This massive humanitarian disaster is known among Palestinians and others as ‘The Catastrophe,’ AL Nakba in Arabic.
Zionist forces committed at least 33 massacres and destroyed 531 Palestinian villages and towns.
This was the historical creation of the state of Israel and this is the truth, no proaganda.
This is History.
You can read the whole article on the website
If Americans knew.com
disagree or agree, americans right
AG can post here anytime. Who are you to say she cant? Are you afraid of a debate? Maybe you will be proved wrong or will it put a seed in your brain to investigate? That is all I ask. Let conservatives post here, please do..and put a seed out there so we can investigate and maybe we can all come to a consensus that we are Americans first and foremost..How can we stop distrust around the world if we as Americans cannot stop it between us? Sure many conservative posts get my blood boiling but so what. I read them, get boiled and then laugh and either post a disagreement or an agreement.
insult to all sane americans
To post something like this shows you are truly a bigoted fool. You know darn well, we of the left are not *dancing on their graves*. It is an insult that you posted this.
|
