Confirmed, CNN & New Yorker: Bush pre-planned Lebanon War

[StartedAt18]

Today on CNN, Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, the one who mainstreamed the Abu Gahrib story, has confirmed with insiders that Bush and the Israeli Government planned months in advance that any incident, no matter how small, would ignite a broad and punishing response by Israel in a preemptive move to start a war with Iran. Bush's Neocon advanced plan actually included Israel destroying Hezbollah's missles as pre-cursor to an attack on Iran. The war with Iran is on the assembly line. Only a mass (I mean millions of people marching) protest will stop this insane neo-dictator in the Whitehouse. Hersh even says that Bush doesn't even regard Congress or the people when deciding foreign policy. I think this little vid is an ominous insight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5eBrfrWoTk


Skynews MP Galloway on Israel-Lebanon War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PhIIfgY_0U

[Show Me the Wire]

Today on CNN, Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, the one who mainstreamed the Abu Gahrib story, has confirmed with insiders that Bush and the Israeli Government planned months in advance that any incident, no matter how small, would ignite a broad and punishing response by Israel in a preemptive move to start a war with Iran. Bush's Neocon advanced plan actually included Israel destroying Hezbollah's missles as pre-cursor to an attack on Iran. The war with Iran is on the assembly line. Only a mass (I mean millions of people marching) protest will stop this insane neo-dictator in the Whitehouse. Hersh even says that Bush doesn't even regard Congress or the people when deciding foreign policy. I think this little vid is an ominous insight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5eBrfrWoTk


Skynews MP Galloway on Israel-Lebanon War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PhIIfgY_0U


So it seems President Bush is more intelligent than the left gives him credit for. Set a trap for Iran and its proxy army Hezbollah and they fell for it. See there is a plan for the Middle East. :)

[JustRalph]

Here we go again............. :ThmbDown:

[Snag]

18, what does President Bush wish to gain from a war with Iran?

[dav4463]

Iran is only the beginning. Not only was he behind 9/11 to get this all started, I heard President Bush is going to grow a little Hitler mustache and take over the world. Is he Mason too? I know the Masons plan to take over the world as well. I also heard that Bush as a young boy masterminded the shooting of John F. Kennedy. He was the one on the grassy knoll. He also masterminded a plot to keep us from knowing that aliens have landed and UFO information is being hidden from us by the government. Bush also has Elvis and Jim Morrison living in Crawford at his ranch. They aren't really dead you know.

[Show Me the Wire]

Snag:

Come on Snag President Bush, don't you understand, is a religious conservative idealogue, who is dangerous to the stability of the world. According to the left, the President's biggest distractors, his Evangelical Christians beliefs are the ruination of the U.S. and world peace.

This unaccepatable behavior is condemned in contrast to Islamic world leaders, whose religious belief systems call for the eradication of Jewish people no matter where they are located and the paving the way, using violence to hasten the returnof the 12th imam to establish the Golden Age of Islam, which behavior the left does not see neither as conservative religious fanaticism nor a threat to world stability.

I think this type of thinking is called a double standard. Oh yes the Democratic candidate did not lose a presidential election to President Bush, that is the real difference in evils.

StartedAt18 do you realize how tiresome it is to hear the same complaints repackaged becuase Gore and Kerry lost to President Bush, especially when there is no connection to reality.

Why don't you put your intellect to use and answer the question regarding the effectiveness of diplomacy in posts 16, 18, and 28 in the August 22 and Iran thread.

[Secretariat]

Started, do you have a link to Hirsch's article. I'd like to read it before arbitrarily commenting on it.

[Light]

Link to the New Yorker article by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, “to get a green light for the bombing

Several current and former officials involved in the Middle East told me that Israel viewed the soldiers’ kidnapping as the opportune moment to begin its planned military campaign against Hezbollah.

The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel’s retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah’s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel’s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.

[Secretariat]

Thanks Light.

I have to question a lot Hirsch writes in this as he uses "high level" and "pentagon consultant" without actually naming anyone who is willing to go on record.

I'm going to hope that GW was not stupid enough to advocate this after all his other mistakes, and give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[Snag]

Snag:

Come on Snag President Bush, don't you understand, is a religious conservative idealogue, who is dangerous to the stability of the world. According to the left, the President's biggest distractors, his Evangelical Christians beliefs are the ruination of the U.S. and world peace.



SMTW, I'm so sorry. I should have known that President Bush was the route (sp?) of all evil in the world right now. I just got out of rehab and boy are my arms tired.

I also wonder why, if Hersh has so many contacts, he is the only one with this "story". Again with the unnamed sources crap.

[Show Me the Wire]

Snag:

Oh yes the Democratic candidate did not lose a presidential election to President Bush, that is the real difference in evils.



Should have read the Democratic candidate did not lose a presidential election to the Iranian, as of course history records Gore and Kerry lost to President Bush.

[Show Me the Wire]

Snag:

So noted.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Is everyone as surprised as 18 that Israel bombing Lebanon was not a spur-of-the-moment decision? Do you really think they did not have targets picked out? I would be more worried if Bush (or the next Lib Demo to win the presidency) does NOT have contingency plans for going to war against many countries. Obviously Carter had no plan when Iran held about 100 of our citizens during 1980. Or Reagan when our marines got killed in Lebanon.
Is that blithering idiot Bush aware of our failures to plan in the past? YES.
Since the Pelosi's and other radical lefties in Congress were cheering Israel on, I doubt you will recognize any of the 1,000,000 sympathisers marching as one of them. Maybe Murtha, Dean, and Kerry. Ye-ha!

[Light]

I would be more worried if Bush (or the next Lib Demo to win the presidency) does NOT have contingency plans for going to war against many countries.

I think you're missing the point. Every government has contingency plans. But you need to distinguish between contingency plans and acts of aggression. Iraq,Afghanistan and now Lebanon. All preplanned acts of aggression. I suppose you could call acts of aggression contingency plans,but then the word becomes a smokescreen when applied in every case.

[Secretariat]

My issue on this is a few things.

1. The hostilities began over the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers.

2. Rice and Bush have said there would be no cease fire until the hostages were returned and it was a meaningful cease fire leading to real lasting peace.

3. Today GW reiterated that claim of a lasting cease fire with conditions.

4. However, the two hostages have not been returned, hundreds of civilians on both sides have been killed, Hezbollah is claiming victory, and offering to rebuild Southern Lebanon, many people of Lebanon are now siding with Hezbollah after what they see as an Israeli invasion into their soil, and now this Hirsch article stating this was some kind of wargame on the part of the Bush admisntration.

Bottom line...another mess.

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

As you said, sigh. First you complain he doesn't compromise, doesn't listen to our allies. Now he uses diplomacy with France to end the killing of innocent civilians and you still gripe.

sec, no matter what the President does you find fault, doesn't use diplomacy he is wrong, negotiates and he is wrong.


Let me remind you the U.N. vote was unanamous and yet you find fault.

[Secretariat]

sec:

As you said, sigh. First you complain he doesn't compromise, doesn't listen to our allies. Now he uses diplomacy with France to end the killing of innocent civilians and you still gripe.

sec, no matter what the President does you find fault, doesn't use diplomacy he is wrong, negotiates and he is wrong.

Let me remind you the U.N. vote was unanamous and yet you find fault.

Boy, you just don't read my posts. First I said nothing about the UN vote, or that the President was wrong to use diplomacy.

I'm happy the UN security vote was unanimous. It would have been unanimous a day after Israel went into Lebanon had the US got behind it. I thought the hold up was the return of the hostages, and conditoins met by Hezbollah. one day into the cease fire Hezbollah claims victory. Yeah, another mess.

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

I do read your posts. You complain, all the time about the lack of diplomacy, and then you griped about diplomacy. I referenced the vote to illustrate the cease fire was a result of diplomacy.

I do not understand why it is another mess. It was a diplomatic solution desired by our allies. Part of negotiations is not getting everything you want. So President Bush did not get everything he desired and he acquised to our allies.

Now it seems you are implying e should not have modified his stance so diplomacy could work, but stuck to his original position no matter how many continuing cvilians deaths would incur from Hezbollah's aggressive action.

Like I said you find fault if President Bush modifies his stance to appease our allies and the world or if he refuses to modify his policy to reflect world opinion.

[PaceAdvantage]

Today on CNN, Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, the one who mainstreamed the Abu Gahrib story, has confirmed with insiders that Bush and the Israeli Government planned months in advance that any incident, no matter how small, would ignite a broad and punishing response by Israel in a preemptive move to start a war with Iran.

If this is indeed true, then I will be the first to stand up and applaud.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I think you're missing the point. Every government has contingency plans. But you need to distinguish between contingency plans and acts of aggression. Iraq,Afghanistan and now Lebanon. All preplanned acts of aggression. I suppose you could call acts of aggression contingency plans,but then the word becomes a smokescreen when applied in every case.
_________________
Light- first of all, I saw the DOD briefing on CSPAN that said our plans were to democratized the entire middle east- the one-world-government thing. So you can certainly make the argument that we are just waiting for someone to start something.
Since Vietman I have had the attitude we either stay out or go in any war to win- no "holding-action" or half-assed BS.
It was after the prison thing in Iraq that I said we had been in Iraq long enough, no real progress for the Iraqis (I heard recently that Iraq still has only 5 hours a day of electricity).
I can argue with you about Afghanistan being an act of agression but it would just boil down to at what point you feel we should go to war and for how long.
Many of the wars the USA has been involved in after the Am Rev has been due to 1 single incident that sparked it. I will not go through the list.
You may even remember me saying that when I was in the US Navy in 1983 or 1984 I was on a supply ship that had 2 guns that could only fire shells the size of Coke cans- 2 3" guns.
The Iranian Iatolla calimed 100 miles territorial waters and threatened to blow up and Navy ships that came within 100 miles of Iran; we spent 2 days dancing 103 miles out trying to draw fire so we could attack Iran. If I was not on the ship I would have hoped they attacked so we couild have taken care of them then! That was shortly after Hez blew up our marines in Lebanon- it was well known by our government even then that Iran was behind the whole thing.

[Snag]

If this is indeed true, then I will be the first to stand up and applaud.

PA, I agree with you, except that his sources are unnamed and can't be quoted directly. He says his publisher has met and talked with some of his sources but none have come forward to allow any rebuttal. I just find it strange that they would only talk to him and no one else. I'm sure his sources also know a New York Times reporter, or two.

[OTM Al]

Well, I must say Hersh has a hell of a lot more credibility than the bozos Sa18 was touting a few weeks ago.

Here is an interview with him that pretty much outlines his politics. I must say I think the title is a little over the top, but I'm going to attribute it to the reporter

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/26/1450204

Here's a Wikipedia mini bio that's pretty informative about his career, but also plants a seed of doubt about his journalistic ethics and current state of mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

Is this claim believable to me? Yes, though I have a few reservations. Hersh's comments about stretching the truth being a big one. Also, I'd like to think our government was not so arrogant as to think they could take an already overstretched military and run rampant through the middle east. I'm not too sure we could win that one even with public support.

The main thing that makes me think it may be true was the fact that we did try to use international good will after the terrorist attacks to our own ends by going into Iraq. We didn't get it of course, but went in anyway. Iraq was a done deal from day one of Bush. It was long planned and the attacks just gave him the excuse. I didn't want to believe that until I saw a little news story about 9mos - 1 year before we went in about how the Pentagon was quietly contracting large amounts of private shipping. (I wish I'd saved the link for proof, but didn't. I know it was a story from a real news site that was linked to by the Drudge Report) That sealed the deal right there. Why? because our Navy is currently not big enough to be able to handle the equipment needed for a war, so we needed to use private shipping to get our stuff over there. It didn't matter whether or not there were WMDs. This was an act of revenge by George Jr. "He (Saddam) tried to kill my daddy" after all. No, I actually don't believe it was all about the oil, though that was an added benefit.

So, the comments here are (sadly) fairly believable to me, but I'd like to think the plans would be relegated to one of those hypothetical military exercise sort of things.

[Show Me the Wire]

RE: Hersh

It would have been nice if he described what "cult" he is talking about. Nice sound byte though, sounds really good.

BTW I understood voting for President Bush would more than likely mean continuing warfare, that is why I voted for him. Counterpoint to his point of voter ignorance.

Additionally, I am in favor of a Israeli like U.S. policy to eliminate threats before they can injure us. President Bush made it clear in hie speeches that he would rescind executive orders against assasinations, once again this plan was laid out in the open.

Because certain people do not agree with a policy, please do not insult others by saying the voters did not understand the ramifications of their vote.

Yes there is some dissatisfaction , most of this dissatisfaction is not the war per se, but the execution of the war. Big difference, as summed up by Twindoubles quote about our military action in the Middle East: "Pressure from the liberals are preventing us from putting a serious dent into the war on terror."

[Tom]

Started, do you have a link to Hirsch's article. I'd like to read it before arbitrarily commenting on it.

After you read it, will you then arbitrarily comment on it? :rolleyes:

[Light]

RE: Article

If this is indeed true, then I will be the first to stand up and applaud.

Just one minor problem. It would mean you agree with the articles premise that the war was not started due to kidanpped soldiers and that it was preplanned. In turn that would negate Israel's blame of civilian deaths on Hezbollah because they kidnapped. Which would mean you are condoning Israel's killing of innocent civilians.

[Secretariat]

RBTW I understood voting for President Bush would more than likely mean continuing warfare, that is why I voted for him.

That's a pretty sad statement.

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

No it shows I understood what I voted for, so I don't need a lecture telling me I was duped.

I recognize the danger of radical islamic believers in their quest to kill innocent Jewish civilians, the rest of us infidels and some sect's attempts to pave the way for the 12th imam.

I call my vote a decision for security of the country and the world..

I think your lack of understanding about radical islam and its theocratic governments is appaling and as well as sad.

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

Where is the contempt and indignation you displayed to my statement about voting for President Bush, when it comes to the Syria's dictator's statements and the Iranian President's statements regarding peace in the Middle East?

Syria's dictator lambasted the cease fire and promised there would be no peace in the Middle East and the Arab world will defeat the Jews. The same sentiments were echoed by the theocratic Iranian President.

Sec, what gives these people the right to advocating genocide against the Jewish people, killing non-believers and imposing their ideas on other people's will while you give them a free pass and vent indignation at my statement.

Do you believe these stated goals of these leaders are rhetoric? If you do you are mistaken.

Genocide of Jews and the eradication of Israel are real beliefs and goals, as well as killing infidels and imposing their viewpoint on others' will.

Light is correct in his statements about their beliefs.

These hate statements by these Islamic leaders reinforce I made the correct decision in supporting President Bush.

I do not believe these fanatics have the right to kill Jews, eradicate Israel, kill infidels (non believers) and impose their will on others and I exercise righteous indignation against their beliefs carried out by their vile actions.

What kind of vile belief system teaches the trees will call out to the righteous "there is a Jew hiding behind me come kill him"? A vile, evil, hate filled one, that must be eradicated from humanity's spirit.

I think your contempt should be aimed at such beliefs and actions.

[rastajenk]

When was the last time Hersh was right about anything?

[PaceAdvantage]

Just one minor problem. It would mean you agree with the articles premise that the war was not started due to kidanpped soldiers and that it was preplanned.

Not true at all. You and they use the word preplanned. I use a different words to describe the same situation.

CONTINGENCY PLANS, put into action based upon unprovoked, aggressive tactics by one's enemy.

[Secretariat]

sec:

Where is the contempt and indignation you displayed to my statement about voting for President Bush, when it comes to the Syria's dictator's statements and the Iranian President's statements regarding peace in the Middle East?



I condemn all tyrants.

[Secretariat]

If this is indeed true, then I will be the first to stand up and applaud.

Why would you applaud such a statement? I have said I don't put a lot of stock in the article, but I don't understand why someone would applaud war for the slighest provocation. We've seen the results in Iraq Civil War thus far. We've seen the results of thousands of people killed based on the taking of two hostages. Why would anyone applaud the outbreak of a war based on the slighest provocation?

[PaceAdvantage]

Why would anyone applaud the outbreak of a war based on the slighest provocation?

As I said, when you are but a toy poodle, and you poke a sleeping Doberman enough times with a stick, eventually, he's going to wake up and cut you to pieces.

It's high time these folks are taught another lesson in foreign relations....don't mess with a sleeping dog that's a lot bigger than you.

[sq764]

Why would you applaud such a statement? I have said I don't put a lot of stock in the article, but I don't understand why someone would applaud war for the slighest provocation. We've seen the results in Iraq Civil War thus far. We've seen the results of thousands of people killed based on the taking of two hostages. Why would anyone applaud the outbreak of a war based on the slighest provocation?
We've also seen the results of doing nothing. (We'll call them the Clinton years)

[JustRalph]

We've also seen the results of doing nothing. (We'll call them the Clinton years)

hopefully that is what the history books will call it.

[Tom]

The Clinton years will be reduced to a centerfold-out in the history books.

[skate]

so so , so hershey says he got inside informants, but can't tell us who they are but hes gonna come out and tell all "our friends" (hezboolly included) about all this inside info. and try his damnest to put down Uncle George, before uncle george gets the upper hand.


and how bout these same (put downers) when they complain bout Isreal retailiating after having there people taken away.
seems like they forget the bus bombs, etc., that there (hezbollys) children take into Isreal.

give me 30 days at the helm.
neither side will have to worry bout there kids.
only one winner, always.

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

The Iranian President is not a tyrant. He is duly elected, a representative of the people he leads.

I just noticed the lack of your comments about his position about peace in the Middle East and about the people that elected him. The populace of Iran endorsed the continuation of violence by voting for him.

I would have expected a "how sad" comment from you about their like for continuing violence.


You see sec, I do not believe Iran has the right to commit genocide against Jews or anyone else for that matter, and because of my belief, I voted for a man that would continue warfare, if needed, against these religious fanatics.

[Light]

CONTINGENCY PLANS, put into action based upon unprovoked, aggressive tactics by one's enemy.

Your above statement is absurd and is proven false when compared to your below statement. In these statements,the toy poodle is the psycho agrressor and the Doberman is sleeping peacefully.In reality we know Dobermans are aggressive and poodles are peaceful. I would suggest you choose your dogs more wisely next time.

As I said, when you are but a toy poodle, and you poke a sleeping Doberman enough times with a stick, eventually, he's going to wake up and cut you to pieces.

[Tom]

Actually, light, I'd suggest THEY choose them more carefully. :D

[Show Me the Wire]

Light:

Poodles are far from being peaceful. They are high strung, and aggressive.

I agree with you about Dobermans.

[Secretariat]

sec:

The Iranian President is not a tyrant. He is duly elected, a representative of the people he leads.

I just noticed the lack of your comments about his position about peace in the Middle East and about the people that elected him. The populace of Iran endorsed the continuation of violence by voting for him.

I would have expected a "how sad" comment from you about their like for continuing violence.

You see sec, I do not believe Iran has the right to commit genocide against Jews or anyone else for that matter, and because of my belief, I voted for a man that would continue warfare, if needed, against these religious fanatics.

Democracy does not mean a man cannot be a tyrant. A tyrant is defined in the dictionary as:

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

I think the President of Iran qualfies as all three regardless of who elected him. On August 19.1934, Hitler was elected in Germany with 95.7% of the vote. Having a democracy is a wonderfu lthing, but it does not gurantee tyrants do not gain power. Hence, why our founders wanted a Bill of Rights.

you then go onto state:

"I do not believe Iran has the right to commit genocide against Jews or anyone else for that matter, and because of my belief, I voted for a man that would continue warfare, if needed, against these religious fanatics."

I agree no country to commit genocide...the problem is from the POV of many Muslims we are the ones allowing the committing of genocide upon the Palestinian people. I realize you don't agree with that, but I beleive war is a last resort, not a first one as this admisntration has demonstrated so sadly.

There is incredible condemnation of Clinton, yet American lives were not lost in the Bosnian War, the parties to the first WTC attack (the Blind ShieK) was and still is imprisoned. The number of American lives lost on his watch was considerably less than on the current guy. And the current guy states there is no end in sight. Bin Laden and Zawahari and Omar, the three principal guys still remain at large. We are condemned worldwide in itnerantional polls. GW has squandered the good will toward America after 911. That is unforgivable. I don't for the life of me see how you can even remotely see this as progress.

...

And PA comparing Muslims to toy poodles is a sure way to get diplomacy to work. Jeez

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

I believe President Clinton is rightfully criticized due to his failure to address the global terrorism issue and giving the impression to the terrorists that the U.S. is to weak in spirit to fight against a commited enemy.

A measure of loss of life is not limited to a specific time frame in office, but the long term ramifications of decisions made during the term of office.

Big knock on Carter, blood on his hands after his term through his ill advised foreign policies.

[Secretariat]

sec:

I believe President Clinton is rightfully criticized due to his failure to address the global terrorism issue and giving the impression to the terrorists that the U.S. is to weak in spirit to fight against a commited enemy.

A measure of loss of life is not limited to a specific time frame in office, but the long term ramifications of decisions made during the term of office.

Big knock on Carter, blood on his hands after his term through his ill advised foreign policies.

So are you saying that the first WTC bombing was a result of Bush I inaction? Appears so by this logic.

btw...off the topic a bit, but in terms of security have you seen this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/us_nm/security_seattle_dc

How could the Coast Guard NOT know the origin of the ship? If the manifest is available why wouldn't the information where the ship orginated from be as well? This is the danger of our lax port security.

As to progress, 17,000 Iraqis have been documented as killed since Jan. 06, and 3400 in July. That's a lot of folks. I don't see this as progress or winning the hearts of the Iraqi people.

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

After reviewing your post, I need to ask you these questions.

Do you believe these current events happen in a vacuum?

Do you really believe past administration policies had no impact on actions taking place today?

Reading your post above (and cumulative) you seem to infer, worthy administrations are based on body counts, since lesser amount of soldiers were killed in this action or that action defines a sucessful administration.

Did you ever consider the reason lives were not lost during a specific time frame was because past strategy was to run away from a problem, instead of confronting the problem.

President Clinton had the opportunity to capture Osama, if he accepted the offer 9/11 would not probably have happened. Now I know I am red boarding and I am not blaming 9/11 on Clinton, because I am sure if he thought Osama could do such a thing, I believe Clinton would have agreed to the capture.

My point prior actions and lack of action define today's actions. What happens now is the result of past actions or lack thereof.

[Indulto]

Originally posted by Show Me The Wire(1)
sec:
The Iranian President is not a tyrant. He is duly elected, a representative of the people he leads.

I just noticed the lack of your comments about his position about peace in the Middle East and about the people that elected him. The populace of Iran endorsed the continuation of violence by voting for him.The President of Iran may well be “duly elected,” but the available slate of candidates from which Iranian voters "chose" hi, from was determined undemocratically by the religious authority that actually governs Iran.

Show me the effective difference between Iranian democracy and that of the USSR in which a single Communist Party member was the only choice, or even today’s Russia where officially eligible candidates are committed to asylums for supposed psychological breakdowns. Is it really safe to assume that the voting majority “electing” the President of Iran did so based on conviction much less to “continue violence?”… You see sec, I do not believe Iran has the right to commit genocide against Jews or anyone else for that matter, and because of my belief, I voted for a man that would continue warfare, if needed, against these religious fanatics.Do you believe the U.S. has the right to commit “genocide” on Muslims? Can you understand why Muslims throughout the world might conclude we think that? How many non-Muslims did we kill in Iraq?Originally posted by Show Me The Wire(2)
Would LOVE thy neighbor make living here on earth like Heaven? Would feeding your fellow man when he is hungry, clothing your fellow man when he is naked, consoling your fellow man when he needs consoling, celibrating with your fellow man the wonder and beauty of life make life on earth heaven like?

The goal is to create heaven on earth through LOVE, kindness, compassion and consolation.

Easy concept to understand but difficult to practice. Self denial for the sake of others is difficult to practice. Placing a strangers needs before your own is a demanding task as it seems to go against every fiber in our being. How does this square with continuing violence against those who ARE religious fanatics AS WELL AS those who are NOT?Yet if every person wanted to to be treated with respect and kindness and they treated others, as they wanted to be treated this world would be genuinely transformed. Maybe that transformation would take place if people would NOT treat others in any way they themselves did NOT WISH to be treated. As you say twindouble life is about survival and well being, if we all cared for each other and filed each others physical and emotional needs we all would have survival and well being, as well as peace and prosperity.Do you think that accurately describes the actions and attitude of the administration you voted for toward the volunteer soldiers (and their families) who gave and/or risked their lives and limbs to implement a questionable policy which a preponderance of evidence suggests is now a failed one?Originally posted by Show Me The Wire(3)
I have to ask why. Why does the U.S. have to set up a conference? Iran is not a U.S. problem, except for it proposing genocide to one of the U.S. allies and agitating violence in Iraq, against innocent Iraqi civilians.

Iran is a bigger problem to the non theocratic governed muslem states, it is their responsibility. Action by these muslim states would be more meaningful and have some real impact.

The U.S. ssetting the agenda only gives more fodder to governments like Iran about the evil west.

And running out of Iraq would be giving the aggressive theocratic regimes the wrong message and reinforce their beliefs that the U.S. is a paper tiger, with no stomach for violence.Just whose stomachs are over in Iraq, now? Are YOU posting from there? What about your neighbors or their children? If you love them, why do you keep sending them on a false mission? Having said Iran is not our problem, would you now send them there too?

[Show Me the Wire]

For convenience I put your questions in color, my gracious reponses in black. I said gracious as I do not have to justify, to you, anyting I say but I find your questions amusing.


The President of Iran may well be “duly elected,” but the available slate of candidates from which Iranian voters "chose" hi, from was determined undemocratically by the religious authority that actually governs Iran. Show me the effective difference between Iranian democracy and that of the USSR in which a single Communist Party member was the only choice, or even today’s Russia where officially eligible candidates are committed to asylums for supposed psychological breakdowns. Is it really safe to assume that the voting majority “electing” the President of Iran did so based on conviction much less to “continue violence?


Not my problem, I do not have to prove anything. However, the Iranain preident said there will never be peace in the MIddle East until Israel is eradicated.

How about you prove the majority of the Iranian population want Israel for a neighbor and disavow any genocide of Jews.

If you prove that fact you will convert me to believing Iran is not a threat to world stability.

Do you believe the U.S. has the right to commit “genocide” on Muslims? Can you understand why Muslims throughout the world might conclude we think that? How many non-Muslims did we kill in Iraq?

Please show me where I advocated such a thing. Probably none since religious tolerance is not accepted in muslim states.

How does this square with continuing violence against those who ARE religious fanatics AS WELL AS those who are NOT?

Study theology, I am not here to educate you.

Maybe that transformation would take place if people would NOT treat others in any way they themselves did NOT WISH to be treated.

I think you just restated the premise only in the negative.

Do you think that accurately describes the actions and attitude of the administration you voted for toward the volunteer soldiers (and their families) who gave and/or risked their lives and limbs to implement a questionable policy which a preponderance of evidence suggests is now a failed one?

A failure by your definition? I do not speak for the administration's attitude toward volunteer soldiers. As for me I am thankful for their sacrifices.

Just whose stomachs are over in Iraq, now? Are YOU posting from there? What about your neighbors or their children? If you love them, why do you keep sending them on a false mission? Having said Iran is not our problem, would you now send them there too?

The statements about violence is paraphrased from terroist leaders' quotes. Obviously you need to educate yourself about what certain Islamic leaders say and believe about the U.S.

I enjoy the way you try to post quotes out of context. Taking specific qoutes from multiple differing topics and trying to meld them together, into one topic.

[Show Me the Wire]

BTW, Indulto:

Since you interjected yourself into sec and my running dialogue, why don't you answer some of the questions I proposed to him.

First question:

How effective is diplomacy when you have a religious fanatic national leader believing violence will usher in a golden age of prosperity for Islam?

(BenDiesel is still waiting for a lucid response from the democrat apologists. Will you be the one?)

Do you think current events occur in a vacuum?

Do you think past administration policies have impacted the current state of affairs?

Do you define a successful administration as the one with the fewest body count during the actual duration of the administration?

How do you feel about being as a self avowed atheist number one on a real hit list of some muslim sect?

Why do you seek justification for my statements to Twindouble, when Twindouble seemed ameniable to my thoughts?

Inquiring minds, etc.

[Indulto]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
For convenience I put your questions in color, my gracious reponses in black. I said gracious as I do not have to justify, to you, anyting I say but I find your questions amusing. I’m delighted I amuse you.Originally posted by Indulto
The President of Iran may well be “duly elected,” but the available slate of candidates from which Iranian voters "chose" [hi, from] was determined undemocratically by the religious authority that actually governs Iran. Show me the effective difference between Iranian democracy and that of the USSR in which a single Communist Party member was the only choice, or even today’s Russia where officially eligible candidates are committed to asylums for supposed psychological breakdowns. Is it really safe to assume that the voting majority “electing” the President of Iran did so based on conviction much less to “continue violence? Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Not my problem, I do not have to prove anything. However, the Iranain preident said there will never be peace in the MIddle East until Israel is eradicated.

How about you prove the majority of the Iranian population want Israel for a neighbor and disavow any genocide of Jews.

If you prove that fact you will convert me to believing Iran is not a threat to world stability.Not my problem, I do not have to prove anything.;) And I would never attempt to convert you to anything.Originally posted by Indulto
Do you believe the U.S. has the right to commit “genocide” on Muslims? Can you understand why Muslims throughout the world might conclude we think that? How many non-Muslims did we kill in Iraq?Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Please show me where I advocated such a thing. Probably none since religious tolerance is not accepted in muslim states.Originally posted by Indulto
How does this square with continuing violence against those who ARE religious fanatics AS WELL AS those who are NOT?Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Study theology, I am not here to educate you.Originally posted by Indulto
Maybe that transformation would take place if people would NOT treat others in any way they themselves did NOT WISH to be treated.Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
I think you just restated the premise only in the negative.If you don’t understand the difference, you better NOT teach theology.
Originally posted by Indulto
Do you think that accurately describes the actions and attitude of the administration you voted for toward the volunteer soldiers (and their families) who gave and/or risked their lives and limbs to implement a questionable policy which a preponderance of evidence suggests is now a failed one? Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
A failure by your definition? I do not speak for the administration's attitude toward volunteer soldiers. As for me I am thankful for their sacrifices. So thankful you’re willing to continue their sacrifice?Originally posted by Indulto
Just whose stomachs are over in Iraq, now? Are YOU posting from there? What about your neighbors or their children? If you love them, why do you keep sending them on a false mission? Having said Iran is not our problem, would you now send them there too?Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
The statements about violence is paraphrased from terroist leaders' quotes. Obviously you need to educate yourself about what certain Islamic leaders say and believe about the U.S.

I enjoy the way you try to post quotes out of context. Taking specific qoutes from multiple differing topics and trying to meld them together, into one topic. I’m glad you’re entertaimed.Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
BTW, Indulto:

Since you interjected yourself into sec and my running dialogue, why don't you answer some of the questions I proposed to him.

First question:

How effective is diplomacy when you have a religious fanatic national leader believing violence will usher in a golden age of prosperity for Islam?

(BenDiesel is still waiting for a lucid response from the democrat apologists. Will you be the one?) BD is a very interesting poster, but I’m responding to you and your question doesn’t interest me. Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Do you think current events occur in a vacuum?

Do you think past administration policies have impacted the current state of affairs?

Do you define a successful administration as the one with the fewest body count during the actual duration of the administration?

How do you feel about being as a self avowed atheist number one on a real hit list of some muslim sect?Why do you assume I’m an atheist just because I said I don’t have any religious affiliation?Originally posted by Show Me the Wire

Why do you seek justification for my statements to Twindouble, when Twindouble seemed ameniable to my thoughts?

Inquiring minds, etc If you don’t want other posters to comment on your posts, use the Private Message facility.

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

I do not mind you commenting on my posts. Actually, I missed the comment parts, it looked like all questions about qoutes I mde in multiple posts to separate parties on different subjects.

You seem to enjoy asking questions, so I asked you some relating to the discussion with sec.

Your comment about my questions not interesting you, is revealing. Like I said I answered your questions out of graciousness. I do not have to justify, to you, any of my thoughts. If you are not gracious enough to respond to my questions so be it.

Your failure to respond in kind speaks volumes about you.

[Indulto]

… Your comment about my questions not interesting you, is revealing. Like I said I answered your questions out of graciousness. I do not have to justify, to you, any of my thoughts. If you are not gracious enough to respond to my questions so be it.

Your failure to respond in kind speaks volumes about you.Spare Me The Whining

Your failure to respond perceptively generates volumes of evidence that your contact with reality is a rare occurrence. :D

What do you find so disconcerting about the expectation that one's values should be consistent across threads and intended recipients of public communication?

I was and am not interested in your question because to answer it would be to accept your foolishly inaccurate label “Democrat apologist.” As I have posted previously, I am a registered independent because I believe neither major party is free of corruption or willing to address it.

My intention is to vote for the most competent and trustworthy candidate whenever I believe I am sufficiently informed to make that determination. The process usually degenerates into settling for the one who appears least incompetent and less corrupt. The result has been that my voting record has favored Democratic candidates.

I voted in only one Democratic primary after it was opened to all registered voters and voted for Bill Bradley over Al Gore. Unfortunately -- in that case – MY perception did not become reality. ;)

[twindouble]

Spare Me The Whining

Your failure to respond perceptively generates volumes of evidence that your contact with reality is a rare occurrence. :D

What do you find so disconcerting about the expectation that one's values should be consistent across threads and intended recipients of public communication?

I was and am not interested in your question because to answer it would be to accept your foolishly inaccurate label “Democrat apologist.” As I have posted previously, I am a registered independent because I believe neither major party is free of corruption or willing to address it.

My intention is to vote for the most competent and trustworthy candidate whenever I believe I am sufficiently informed to make that determination. The process usually degenerates into settling for the one who appears least incompetent and less corrupt. The result has been that my voting record has favored Democratic candidates.

I voted in only one Democratic primary after it was opened to all registered voters and voted for Bill Bradley over Al Gore. Unfortunately -- in that case – MY perception did not become reality. ;)

Well, I would have voted for Ross Perot, how's that for perception. :bang: :D

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

LIke I care about your voting record. There is a saying about the best of intentions.

BTW only one question was posed to democrat apologists.

[Show Me the Wire]

Spare Me The Whining


What do you find so disconcerting about the expectation that one's values should be consistent across threads and intended recipients of public communication?

Apparently nothing since I answered all your questions, my comment was an observation about your conglomeration style of posting. Your style seems to be form over substance.

[Indulto]

Apparently nothing since I answered all your questions, my comment was an observation about your conglomeration style of posting. Your style seems to be form over substance.Simple Minded Techniques Wontwork

I always prefer form and style in dealing with responses that have no substance.:D

Apparently the appropriate style and form for responding to you is to always allow your own words to do their damage rather than deploy YOUR dubious device of putting words in the mouths of others. ;)

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

As usually, same ole, same, ole with you. Not interested.