Thank God you represent the minority of Americans.
Posted By: Liberal on 2006-08-11
In Reply to: Wow, you've really drank the kool-aid - Hattie
That gives me a great deal of hope for the rest of us.
There are reports all over the media, both print and television, that Bush has known about this since at least Sunday. I find it very suspicious that it was suddenly revealed the day after Lieberman lost to Lamont and after all the White House cronies made their rounds and used the Connecticut primary to once again accuse Democrats of being soft on terror. (It should be noted that the Democrats are not soft on terror; they agree with wiretaps and other surveillance of suspected terrorists but they want it to be done within the boundaries of the LAW, something for which Bush the King has proven repeatedly he has no respect.)
I agree with Lurker that the only reason I can believe this is because it came from another government. We've had too many lies and cry wolf scare tactics from the Bush administration to believe anything he says. He has zero credibility, and fortunately, reasonable and intelligent Americans are waking up to that fact.
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
This Joe the Plumber is supposed to represent
Well this is a quote from Joe the Plumber.
"The media's worried about whether I've paid my taxes, they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America," Wurzelbacher told the former Republican presidential hopeful on his show, "Huckabee."
This is what is so funny. In Joe's eyes "taxes" are silly things. So, you see he's not worried at all about his taxes being raised IF he were to purchase a company. He thinks taxes are silly and have nothing to do with America. So, you don't think we're footing this Joe the Plumber's bill already?????  He can't even pay his own taxes. How will he ever purchase a company worth more than $250,000.00 with an "outstanding" bill?
then why is he sending people to represent him?
Seriously, I just heard a little blip on our news that he is sending 2 people to represent him- so why not go himself? they send he is sending someone else so as to distance himself from the turmoil but have some representation there who can't actually do anything. That's what was said.
It is his duty to represent his clients, but
if you will reread the OP, you will see, these were his VIEWS, his co-authored versions and interpretations. Yes, these were his beliefs and you better well remember it. He could care less that a 14-year-old girl has to have parental permission to get her ears pierced, just don't mess with her when it comes to getting an abortion! She has her rights you know.
Actually, it was my understanding that both arenas represent the
"war on terrorism." So in a sense, they are both the same war, just different theaters.
Actually our representatives do represent the people
We vote the people in who we find we agree with most of their ideas. Therefore, if this is what the government has voted for they have gone with the people's wishes. I know the people who don't agree with same sex marriage will never believe it, but it's the truth. Hence, the legislators who have voted for this are going with what the people of their state want.
Equal rights for all human beings. Yeah, baby!!!!!!
Just a little clue for you far left Democrats. Thank GOD you don't represent
the mainstream Democrats. Here's the clue. The harder you try to remove God from our consciousness by any means, be it in the Pledge, or any other venue, the harder we will fight you. You WILL NOT remove God from us by any means as long as we live. There are a whole LOT of Democrats who feel this way, too, so don't feel that just because you speak,you speak for them. I feel sorry for you. I don't know where you comfort comes from. I can't possibly imagine a world without God and his grace, forgiveness and love. This is one battle you will not win.
Liberal rags do not represent at least half of the U.S.
You may base that on the fact that right now it's about 50/50 Obama versus McCain. That doesn't mean that the liberal rags, liberal bloggers, MSNBC and the rest represent 50% of the people in our country. Fortunately for the rest of us, there are democrafts who don't agree with the views of the liberal rags, with the tactics of the liberal bloggers, and with the extreme bias of a "news" organization such as MSNBC. Most of the time when you can't document, it is because you are getting someone's OPINION, and not fact, and therefore, you cannot document.
These tea parties represent the people of the country
and how we feel. We are sick of the over-taxation. We are sick of the government not listening to us, spending like there's no tomorrow, and spending money they haven't even printed yet. Then on top of that we're being taxed more and more so they can send it oversees to other countries all while doing Jack sh!t for the Americans. What's next that people who work will not get paid anymore, 100% will go to taxes or maybe we'll get $8 a month (like Cuba) to make us feel like we're getting something for all the hard work we do. There's more to these tea parties than that. You think people's lives being ruined by what government is doing to us is funny? There are over a million people who are involving themselves in the tea parties. Government is supposed to be "for the people". It is not. They are for themselves and screw the people. The governors of each state need to recall these pieces of garbage they sent to DC, because they are no longer representing us (the people who voted for them), they are for themselves and they care less about us.
Did you think the million man march was hilarious also? How about the original Boston Tea Party? Stamp Act? Oh, hey I guess you think the civil war was hysterical too.
I heard a show yesterday that CNN and MSLSD are not participating in the tea parties. What better way to say "screw the American people and the country. We don't care what they have to say". However, you know that if there was a party where everyone in this country was excited and wanted to pay more in taxes and was for bigger government, etc. CNN and MSLSD would be the first to be reporting it.
MSLSD is so far off on what is really happening in this country I'd like to see them go off the air. Maddow, Olberman, Matthews, etc. They're all a bunch of whiny @ss punks who are throwing a tantrum because their station is losing millions of dollars because more people are turning to stations that will give them the truth, and are turning off CNN & MSLSD.
No they absolutely do NOT represent the citizens of this country
So pompous and self-righteous.
I think Bush's administration was the joke, since you asked. At least now we have someone intelligent and not self-absorbed.
I suffered through the abomination of the Bush administration in silence. You bet your sweet bippy I'm celebrating Obama's presidency and the return to power of the Democratic party. I hope to GOD I never see the likes of Dumbya as president again!!!
I think you are in the minority
Of course everything isn't peachy, of course there are problems with the Bush administration, but to accuse him of planning and allowing 9/11 to happen, well, I think you're in a very small group that ascribe to that theory. While I don't think the picture is rosy in Iraq I believe it's not a total debacle, I think the majority of Americans' opinions lie somewhere in the middle of either extreme.
That is very sad. You are in a minority. nm
nm
You are the minority........sad for you....nm
x
Again, Jefferson was in the minority
I count on this response every time I debate liberals. They pull out the Jefferson pistol. Jefferson was definitely in the minority in some of his views, but then he also said at one point that a man should not be elected president who does not believe in God, oh, then the libs scream his writings were manipulated! From most of his writings Jefferson did have a the opinion that government should not have a state religion (the reason we left England in the first place), and on that we agree. Conservatism does not promote a state religion either only promotion of values that Christianity promotes which are not dangerous to anyone and only promote common sense laws were the foundation of our country....don't steal, don't murder, don't cheat on your wife...etc.
Again, I don't advocate shoving my religion down people's throat. You can't make people accept what they will not accept. That's the beauty of God and his Son, Jesus Christ. They give you free choice, and I certainly don't advocate eliminating your free choice. With that said, in this country majority overides the minority, and atheists and non-Judeo-Christian religions are in the minority. They were in minority at the founding of this country, and they are in the minority now.
No, poster is not the minority..........more and more seeing
nm
Majority rules not the minority
as long as someone is given the option not to participate then no one is getting hurt. If they are the only one in the class that does not want to say it then that's life. We can't cower majority traditions and beliefs to make every individual feel included. We'd truly have chaos then, because every one's feelings are different.
All these people make up a minority
I never said that Jefferson was alone in his views just that he was in a minority. Again, from the evidence I've read on both sides liberal philosophers and professors have chosen to re-write history. I think the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights speak for themselves and literally scream about a country with it's foundations in God. You can choose to ignore the words Almighty God, Divine providence etc., but it does not make them any less there in A deist belives in a deity to answer the question posted above either by the writer of the post or the writer of the excerpted text (I could not figure out who was posing the question).
We could throw quotes back and forth all day and never see eye to eye about it, but I choose to err on the side of God and Jesus Christ. I choose to live by faith that Jesus Christ is the only way, but let's look at it in a common sense way. Say I am wrong, and there are many *paths* to God then I'm still eternally okay, because I have embraced this path of which there are many, but say there are not many paths to God and Jesus Christ is truly the only way....then that's going to leave the people on the *other paths* in sad condition when they leave this world.
Whites to be in the minority by 2042
WASHINGTON — White people will no longer make up a majority of Americans by 2042, according to new government projections. That's eight years sooner than previous estimates, made in 2004.
The nation has been growing more diverse for decades, but the process has sped up through immigration and higher birth rates among minority residents, especially Hispanics.
It is also growing older.
"The white population is older and very much centered around the aging baby boomers who are well past their high fertility years," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
"The future of America is epitomized by the young people today. They are basically the melting pot we are going to see in the future."
The Census Bureau Thursday released population projections through 2050, based on rates for births, deaths and immigration. They are subject to big revisions, depending on immigration policy, cultural changes and natural or manmade disasters.
The U.S. has nearly 305 million people today. The population is projected to hit 400 million in 2039 and 439 million in 2050.
That's like adding all the people from France and Britain, said Steve A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that advocates tighter immigration policies.
White non-Hispanics make up about two-thirds of the population, but only 55 percent of those younger than 5.
By 2050, whites will make up 46 percent of the population and blacks will make up 15 percent, a relatively small increase from today. Hispanics, who make up about 15 percent of the population today, will account for 30 percent in 2050, according to the new projections.
Asians, which make up about 5 percent of the population, are projected to increase to 9 percent by 2050.
The population 85 and older is projected to more than triple by 2050, to 19 million.
If that's true, then you're a minority among
nm
It is true, and it is minority baiting.....
so much for bringing the country together...what a joke! So much for ethical campaign and "above the fray." Gutter politics at its absolute worst.
You are in a steadily shrinking minority. nm
.
Not so much minority, just not as much time to spend on it...
as some seem to have...
It has been my experience with 2 hospital jobs that I had, most of the women, probably 95%, were married and did not need to work. This is going back some 16 years, but it was reasonable back then. A lot of women I worked with talked about how they ocketed their pay in the bank and lived off the spouses pay and benefits.
Times have changed so much. I was a single, newcomer, who needed every penny I made because I lived week to week, but they would always vote down the benefits because they did not need them, and they always put me down all the time. Luckily, there were a few bright shining stars who were open, friendly, and helpful - who taught me SO much about transcription; but the majority, well, not so much.
My point is that our profession has one of the biggest class divisions I think I have ever seen or experienced.
I think whites will be a minority before too long. nm
nm
House minority leader John Boehner gets a mystery box. sm
Bacon, not bomb, leads to evacuation of office
2 hours ago
WEST CHESTER, Ohio (AP) — The office of an Ohio congressman who has fought against pork barrel spending was evacuated over a suspicious package that turned out to be full of bacon.
Staff members at the office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (BAY'-nur) became concerned Monday after finding an envelope leaking an oily substance. Police evacuated several buildings before determining the package postmarked from Georgia contained bacon.
A note was included with the bacon, but police didn't commenting on its contents.
Boehner was not in the office.
A spokeswoman says it's ironic someone would send Boehner bacon because he has spent his career fighting pork-barrel spending. He's one of the few members of Congress who shuns earmarks, those home-district projects sought by lawmakers.
However, the Republican has drawn criticism for voting for a $700 billion financial bailout bill that critics say was loaded with pork.
i agree. of course, the white male would be called a racist too for not wanting a minority to succed
//
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
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.
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
|
