VPzjt8 fw831f64td9glse934dkjga

VPzjt8 fw831f64td9glse934dkjga

VPzjt8 fw831f64td9glse934dkjga

Thank you for your kind comments Nora. I only wish that we Americans were as interested in international politics.

From what information I have read, (admittedly I am just as guilty of being ignoring the world outside of our borders), most western countries are fluent in at least 2 languages if not more. We are required to take foreign languages in high school and in college but I find that we are still sadly lacking in a world view regardless. The sentiment that we are an english speaking country has been extended to recognizing or attempting to recognize an official language. I feel that this is anti-thetical to understanding other cultures, and therefore are apt to make foreign policy mistakes. Semanitics are useful in finding the meaning of statements, and if you do not understand the language and the cultural concepts revealed by the dictionary within a language then I believe you are at a loss. The age old example is the 30 words that one of the Alaskan nations have for snow. It illustrates the cultural importance of that item. Slang in the United States betrays status and vulgarity importance but leaves much to be desired in many other areas. All cultures are subject to this of course.

What I am concerned about is that we as Americans are willing to forego self-examination when another country begins to analyze our positions and instead simply use ad hominem attacks. Understanding the cultural backgrounds of the allies and enemies that we engage would greatly benefit all involved. As an example of enormous cultural misjudgement, Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor if they understood that instead of intimidating us with their destructive power they would wake a sleeping giant.

Speelyi, I am not American, I am German, but the disgraceful anti-Americanism in my country has made me interested in American politics and thought. I find BadEagle a cornucopia of information and thought-provoking discussion and I enjoy reading your posts and do learn a lot from them.

Kaktuskid,
Where do you propose I get information from. While I admit that journalists are rarely objective anymore, I would ask that you provide information that is valid and/or cogent. The point being that MSN which in the past has been labeled as right leaning has Zogby as a poller weighting things on gut instinct to the right. The poll that I selected was the most moderate that I could find out of other more liberal polls conducted by agencies overseas. Remember that if the sources that I select are not credible then my contentions are not watertight. I do not quote the Nation, the Progressive, Guerilla News, Altpr.org or any other liberal press because they are not credible in this forum. Though this proves your point I would ask if bias is only a critique of media that you do not use as a source.

I understand that polls can be weighted, in the past 4 polls I believe only FOX news has George W. Bush ahead of John Kerry, why is that? Is it because FOX News is the only rational news network and all the rest are pinkos? Or is it because one of the upper level individuals is W's first cousin? Or perhaps they are right. Point being that if you are going to provide questioning as to information given please give a counter-example or your statements sound empty.

The semantic sheeple can be applied both ways. If you have ever watched Journey's with George you see that there are people at Republican rallies that have no concept of the platform, or even the candidate.

Comparing Stalin and Saddam.....perhaps more appropriate then I first thought. We supported them both against what we believed were greater evils. Then again we never invaded the Soviet Union, or tried Stalin in front of a court that was comprised of Russian judges with an all American administrative staff and investigators under laws that were put in place by a governing council that was selected by Americans and paid for by the American taxpayers while we are allowing more and more criminals to walk the streets. In fact we knew that Stalin had Weapons of Mass destruction and didn't go after him. Of course Stalin was much more dangerous, I don't see Saddam as in the same league.

As you can see by my commentary I am concerned that today's trial is more than likely going to heat the water in Iraq further. After he is convicted if he is sentenced harshly it will enervate the resistance forces who will see it as a Kangaroo court. If he is sentenced and shown leniency then the American government will see it as betrayal, and corruption. The proverbial rock and a hard place.

Nora,
The point of the patriotism statements is that there is a problem of definition. I wouldn't define Hitler as a patriot, I would deem him an Ultra-Nationalist. Class A, role model Ultra-Nationalist. Beyond love of country to the hate of those that they deem outside or unlike their own culture. Ethnocentric and "superior", Ultra-Nationalists use their nation's interests to rationalize the horrors that they commit.

I would call McCain a patriot. If he would have won the election I think things would have been much different for Republicans and Democrats alike. Granted outside of some of his policies I am not knowledgable about his "dirt" but I give him much respect as a former POW and vocal critic of ALL he sees as inappropriate. McCain appeals to me as more of a Joe American v. Bush's blue blood background.

"KPS, I think Hitler was most definitely a patriot. Being a patriot doesnt mean you're correct in all your thoughts. I means you love your country."

Dr. Y., Hitler was a wacko housepainter become beer hall demagogue who would, in any *civilized* country, have been laughed out of the door. He suited the Germans fine and that cost millions of lifes, including many fine American ones. Whether he was a patriot or not is immaterial, the mere reflection upon it is frivolous and obscene. Oh yes, he loved Germany -- to death!

"I had recently read over a poll that had Iraqis desiring to have Saddam back in office."

The Russians in the Gulags and saltmines wept when Stalin died!

"I googled "Polls in Iraq" and found one that stated that a little over half of Iraq felt the invasion was wrong. This is parallel to the polls here in the states."

Of course polls can be spiked...and the fact that many sheeple are being "mushroomed" by our 5th column presstitutes!

NiteShift,
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the dialogue. As a matter of fact thanx to all who have opted to banter with me and a great big thanks to Dr. Y for providing the forum.

To address your points NiteShift. I had recently read over a poll that had Iraqis desiring to have Saddam back in office. I googled "Polls in Iraq" and found one that stated that a little over half of Iraq felt the invasion was wrong. This is parallel to the polls here in the states. As the occupation draws on and the body count rises I believe that this trend will continue. Although we have turned over authority we are still stop-lossing troops and are now activating IRR. Afghantistan was supposed to be stable when Karzai took office but we are still militarily active there and looking to become more so in the near future. The Russians saw what happens when you invade Afghanistan, and the British before them. I have supreme confidence in the American military man, I am just not so sure about the commanders.

I guess that what I am really trying to say is that the dated thought of the Administration (Cold War era) led to the situation that we are currently in. Pick up White's "Introduction to Terrorism" and you will find that the most difficult part of combating terror is defining what a terrorist is. Then you have to subvert their base support. There is no strong definition of terrorist as shown by the use of "enemy combatant". As well there is a great deal of hostility in Iraq as we all can recognize.

Abu Ghraib was a point of contention from its activation by the Administration. A notorious prison used by a dictator that was re-opened by the democratic occupier, this didn't send a positive message to the people of Iraq that we were there to win hearts and minds. I do believe that the majority of Americans are disgusted by the humiliation that we foisted upon people who may have been innocent, (after all there was no due process). The administration, through the memos drafted, saw no problem in this however. As a matter of fact they continue to attempt to insulate themselves when there is growing proof that torture was used in Afghanistan as well. Instead of holding themselves accountable they have shifted the blame to the contractors that they gave permission to torture. $*!# rolls downhill as we say in the Corps.

The difference between the atrocities committed through Manifest Destiny are two-fold in my view. The first is the pure scale of Manifest Destiny and western imperialism in general. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, is Pax Americana next? The Iroquois felt no need to connect the oceans, or all of North America, or invade central America to raid the Aztecs for gold. The second distinct difference between the smaller native wars and Manifest Destiny is that it was fought in the name of Christianity. God wants us to connect the coasts and the savages inbetween can convert or die. The noblisse oblige aspect of Manifest Destiny I see coming later with the creation of boarding schools. That is what I find similar to Iraq. In drafting their constitution, (there was Iraqi input, but it was by individuals that we had selected to include Chalabi), we weakened their Presidency, we did not grant them any way of coping with the ethnic struggles they are sure to have, we did not provide means for them to strengthen their economy (most contracts are in American hands). This sounds alot like the design of reservations at the turn of the century, with the legacy of Cobell v. Norton to remind us that those days are not far past.

Thank you and your son for your service as well. Though I disagree with the war, I had thought about re-enlisting in order to lend my fellow Marines the limited skills and experience that I still possess. I fully support the troops, I don't support decisions made by people who have never stood a post.

Shane, NDN=Indian. Rez shortening.

**
"To view it from a strictly American standpoint is to disallow a subjective look at the possibilities that these people may not want us there. For us to force ourselves upon them after deposing their leader and expect them to embrace us with elation is as ludicrous as the noblisse-oblige that rationalized cutting off NDN hair, and washing NDN mouths out with soap because the "all knowing" American needed to help the "savage" evolve and assimilate into America's superior culture.
The war in Iraq is viewed by many nations (as based on a not to distant pew report) as malignant. I would claim that the current war is as imperial as the land grabs of Manifest Destiny."
- Speelyi
**
I can't say if the war in Iraq was justified or not, I leave that to better minds than my own. I do know that as long as we are there (I say "we" meaning the U.S., though I feel I have a right to say "we" since I did my time in the service and my son did a tour in Iraq & will probably have to go back) we have to make the best of it and try to be successful. You say that the Iraqis may not want us there, and obviously many of them don't. But according to polls, the majority of Iraqis are glad that Saddam has been deposed and look forward to rebuilding their country, with our help. The abuses at Abu Ghraib that you mentioned - definately a bad thing, but I know that the majority of Americans and her soldiers disapprove of such shenannigans, and are embarrassed that it happened. As part of your argument you speak of your continuing resentment towards European-Americans for possessing land that you consider your own, and if I were Indian I'd probably feel the same way. On the other hand, that is the way of the world, and was the way of many Natives as well. As an example, Iroquois tribes literally wiped out the Erie Indians and took their land. Great Lakes tribes for all practical purposes annihilated the Illinois tribes and took their land. There are many other examples of Indians possessing land by right of conquest, and so I am always a little perplexed when Natives claim the moral high ground regarding the whole 'Manifest Destiny' concept as it was practiced during the 18th and 19th centuries. Having said all that, I do see that you are patriotic in your own way and I respect your service to our country as a Marine.
And to KPS, I apologize for my wise-ass comment about your posts, though I don't agree with you.

Speelyi,

"gun totin meat-eatin green party" Now, I'm beginning to understand you more. I love meat, own a gun, and went to military school. I've never served, but I've been in some serious street fights with gunfire and weapons. Does that count?

With your last two posts, I'm beginning to see you more clearly - clearer than your first couple "hit-people-over-the-head-with-a-sledg- hammer" approach.

Keep posting. PS What is a NDN?

Shane

Dr. Y,
In political science it is known as Duvergais'(sp?) Law. The concept is that in a "first past the post" system there can only ever be two viable parties. Hence when the Republicans removed the Whigs, the Whigs died out. Only in an election where there is proportional representation will there be multiple viable parties. I don't see it as a slippery slope to 18th Century France as much as I see it in terms of Comparitive politics of the modern World.

As a result of Duvergais' Law there is the phenomenon of strategic voting. The very incident that you outline. The sentiment that you are "throwing your vote away". This same idea is really what got Kerry to the place he is now. The DLC didn't support Dean, (they saw him as a Goldwater-esque figure), and Kerry got the nod over Lieberman due to the fact that Lieberman was too close to Bush policy. In a polarized atmosphere that was Joe's death knell.

I support the multiple party theorem because I want a party that represents me. I joke that what I really desire is "The Gun toting-Meat eating-Green Party". I don't even remember what I registered last because party politics are part and parcel to voting these days I could be a D and not even know it. I could have checked the box to ensure a ballot. I don't even remember. Irresponsible I know, but it indicates my lack of differentiation in the parties.

I wonder Shane, with no offense intended, if you have served. If you haven't served then do you deserve the same voice that I do? When I signed the dotted line took the oath to defend the United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic, I was swearing my life away as they reminded me on the yellow footprints at MCRD San Diego at 0300 hrs on December 3, 1995. I took the oath to allow all American Citizens the right to speak without being silenced, to exercise the rights that were guaranteed them in the Constitution, and most of all I did it so that my people were protected, my family, my friends. My belief was that if I was "on the wall" I wouldn't feel so impotent in the face of tragedy.

Though I am a proud NDN I do not wish to suppress Nazis, KKK, or even CERA. I don't expect Communists, AIM, Black Panters, or GLBTA to be silenced in kind. I want them to speak their minds in public. I only ever use my former Marine status as a challenge to people who volunteer the sons and daughters of the reservations (Natives serve more than any other) without serving themselves, or having children that serve. It is easy to sacrifice others while your's are safe. Just as it is easy for me to pontificate while I sit here with a full stomach.

I support the Heinlein thesis of no service=no office, no vote. I support this thesis because though there should be criticism and discourse by all, the decisions should be made by people who know what it is like to sleep in a hole in a godforsaken land. Don't get me wrong I never served a day in combat, and I greatly respect the men and women across the globe that do so today. I just don't believe that we should sacrifice such noble people for such questionable reasons. Especially when most of the decision makers didn't serve.

Don't forget that the first illegal immigrant to this land currently known as America was Columbus.

I am not attacking you Shane, I am asking a sincere question. I appreciate the respect that you give service members.

Well, the NADER line. This is interesting. I admit being interested in Perot, a while back. I can even remember a little about George Wallce. The idea of a third party. This is an issue, indeed. Why doesn't it work?

My theory is, no one wants to cast his vote to the wind. If we're going to vote at all, we sort of want to feel we're involved in the outcome. Voting for a third party ticket will not produce a third party winner. At best, it will only indirectly affect the election. Perot, for instance, with 19%, was the clear cause Bush, SR. lost.

But, it may be perfectly true that is it just and necessary to support third party candidates, in hopes of producing better candidates altogether.

Yet, more candidates seems to indicate more divisions in the people, and eventually we get the French Revolution scenario.

I don't know the answer to this!

Speelyi,

visit my web site using my signature link. You will see that I'm no cheerleader of Bush. In fact, I just received my voter registration form which clearly identifies me as an "unaffiliated" voter. I'm seriously doubting whether I'm going to vote for him due to his stance on various issues like Illegal Immigration.

So much clarity could have been achieved if you would have started your thread when back when by saying, "I'm a former marine who served this country, but honestly..." Understand where I'm coming from?

You're posts are easily confused with rantings that I see at Communist rallies in Washington DC where ANSWER and other odd-balls are present.

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Keep using your 1st Amendment - as If I can do anything to stop you by mearly typing words on my keyboard.

Regards
Shane

I utilize the Clinton's as a dichotomy only in the similar polarizing effect that they have on the opposite binary. In election year political discussion I think that it is important to separate John Kerry from Bill Clinton. Kerry served Clinton didn't. All the ruckus that Clinton is causing in the media only detracts from Kerry and as such is a boon to the Bush campaign, if I was a Bush booster I would hope that Bubba stays in the limelight.

I disagree with many of the Bush policies and it appears that the Supreme Court disagrees with some very important ones concerning the War on Terror, (that I would place under my sub-point 1). Kerry I don't see as a great departure from Status Quo, but as a relevant change nonetheless.

I would support Nader actually. He has the most dramatically different take on politics. It is sad that there is so much bile directed at Bush that there are liberals out there who oppose someone running who could affect the race. The idea is completely undemocratic. The concept of the best candidate flies out the door in the face of anger. I think that instead of selecting the lesser of two evils that there should be serious reflection going on about who the candidates are in our system. Another knock against Nader is that he is not Presidential material. Que? Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselve's to Death predicts the phenomenon of image over substance. Whatever happened to citizen driven government?

I say let Ralph debate, what are the other candidates afraid of?

Speelyi, thanks for your testimony. I have always appreciated your approach, and hope you continue to find cause and hope to post on BadEagle!

KPS, I think Hitler was most definitely a patriot. Being a patriot doesnt mean you're correct in all your thoughts. I means you love your country.

You don't seem to see that JudeoChristian values are the foundation of the "American" country. This is where the collision of thought occurs.

You think loving America means to get rid of the Jews. It simply doesn't, historically, socially, or politically. Be sure and look for my 4th of July article on FrontPageMagazine...

Oh, Speelyi, according to everything I've read, including Richard Poe's new book, HILLARY's SECRET WAR, the Clintons are most diffinitely into censorship of dissent, to the point of eliminating people!

But, as I've said, I think Bush is mistaken of several key issues. It's always voting for the lesser two evils, in that no one is perfect. To chose any single man, as we have to do, it doesn't mean that you endorse everything he stands for. It only means he stands for more of what you believe than the other guy...

Dear Mr. Yeagley:

It is important, when promoting and defending one's views of the American nation, to censor all dissenting views.

KPS Reports

@Shane
I would suppose that I am not silent, but the attempts to silence is what I see. It appears as if criticism is unpatriotic in your eyes, and yet you do not address my First Amendment argument.

@MVH
Speaking of founding fathers it sounds as if the quote comes from a paraphrase of Thomas Jefferson, and in fact could be a double-entendre or I am just reading too much into it, which is very possible.

"The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

@Niteshift
I consider myself a patriotic NDN. I served in the United States Marine Corps, am enrolled in my nation, have a general understanding of my culture and seek to improve the lot of my people.

General public
I believe that the denial of criticism is dangerous. To state that criticism is unpatriotic or that certain criticism is unpatriotic is against the very fiber of this nation.

When President Clinton was in office would there be silence required from the conservative constituency? Would that have been patriotic? It appears that this is less a forum for critical thought and intelligent discourse and more for conservative cheerleading. Patriotism is a definition that eludes concrete parameters. Was Hitler a patriot? Stalin?

As a passing question perhaps I should ask what the definitions of patriotism are here in this forum.

I have taken my opinion to the "HEAT" Forum, where it belongs:

http://www.badeagle.com/cgi-bin/ib3/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=84309469356597ed94e99a1b0307434b;act=ST;f=60;t=2298;st=0;&#entry17640

Dr Yeagley, I admire your persistance. This is intended to be a website by and for Indian patriots. But other than your own, I don't think I've ever seen a positive comment from an Indian here regarding the U.S., it's history, it's government, or it's non-Indian inhabitants. And KPS manages to monopolize your forums with his tiresome, interminable Jew-hating screeds. Well Doc, I sincerely hope it pays off for you in the form of a syndicated column, a book deal or something along those lines. Personally, I think you've earned it.

---------------------------------------------

Astute observation. I agree 100%!

Doctor Y, if you discuss "issues" with obsessed wackoes like KPS you give them a legitimacy they don't possess. He is about as rational as the members of the "Flat Earth Society", just less harmless. Stop giving him a forum. "Respecting" somebody like him means disrespecting yourself.

Geee, those "Jooos" sure are clever. Now I know how they rule the world by proxy: First they "hoist up" Y'shua (one of their own) as the Mesiach! And then they spread a few stories about how Y'ashua will on day return. In the meantime, "the Jooos" have Y'ashua's followers to do their bidding.

They beauty of this grand plan is Y'ashua's followers won't even know that they are being manipulated. So what if a few million" Jooos" get slaughtered during the process. Didn't someone say something like,"You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet."? Yeah, it was probably said by a "Joo."

What matters is to have a few "Jooos" strategically positioned, pulling all the right strings will so that one day they will lord it over the whole Middle East. However, to make a grand plan a reality, a starting point is needed. Why not Iraq?

Yup, I can now see the REAL reason for war in Iraq!

Yeah man. Those "Joos" sure are clever.

BTW, I raise a glass:
GOD BLESS IRAQ
June 28, 2004
Saddam Hussein Delenda Est!
And as an Iraqi blogger said,". . .Glory & honor to the US & Allied men and women, whose blood is irrigating the tree of freedom in this land . . : (http://www.messopotamian.blogspot.com/)

Dr Yeagley, I admire your persistance. This is intended to be a website by and for Indian patriots. But other than your own, I don't think I've ever seen a positive comment from an Indian here regarding the U.S., it's history, it's government, or it's non-Indian inhabitants. And KPS manages to monopolize your forums with his tiresome, interminable Jew-hating screeds. Well Doc, I sincerely hope it pays off for you in the form of a syndicated column, a book deal or something along those lines. Personally, I think you've earned it.

Dear Mr. Yeagley:

How do I feel about America? I feel that America went off track. This could be called my "position statement" on America:

***

America has been "in the wrong" in, or "on the wrong side" of, almost every war in which it has been involved, beginning, at least, with the War Between The States. This statement includes the Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War One, World War Two, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, the recent War In The Balkans and the 2003 Invasion Of Iraq. In addition, the fact of America, historically, being "in the wrong," or "on the wrong side," is perfectly exemplified by America's policies of support for the nation of Israel.

***

And, why? Consider the words of Israel Shamir in his article "The Sparrow And The Beatle" (07/12/02) ( http://shamir.mediamonitors.net/july102002.html ):

***

The fate of Americans is not better. Proud to arrogance, they assumed the White Man’s Destiny will lead them from conquest to conquest. They took over the great landmass of North America, forcibly opened the doors of Japan, and won two world wars, just to find themselves strangers in their own house. Now, instead of their own history they study Holocaust Studies, instead of promoting their own interests, they fight mercenary wars for Israel. They work harder and harder to supply the goods to their new elite. They judge the world by one criterion, ‘whether it is good for Jews’. ...

Steinlight draws a self-portrait of an American Judeo-Nazi: “I was taught that Israel is my true homeland. More tacitly and subconsciously I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, while the primary division in the world was between “us” and “them”.

***

But, of course, you don't have to agree with the words of Israel Shamir. However, in the above case, I do.

KPS Reports

Well, KPS, there has to be some definition of the country, any country. I suppose you have assumed that we all understand that you believe in the same definitions of America that we do. This may not be entirely true. Shane is an example, and I may have to join him. You haven't expounded on your patriot feelings, but rather on the things you think are fundamentally wrong with America, like it's Judeo-Christian social values. Most of us see those as the most fundamental value of AMerica. If you don't address that, but instead point out problems, then we naturally assume you have a different take on the country than most of the rest of us on BadEagle.

But there is an important point about criticism. To criticize does not mean one does not love the country. You're right on the Indian business, too, to a great extent.

However, criticizing the JudeoChristian social, moral foundations is like saying you don't like what race your parents are. In a way, anyone has the right to say that, if they feel that way, but, that indicates serious rifts in the familial relationship.

Dear Shane:

You are not going to get your feelings hurt, are you? After all, it was you who started this "Holier-than-thou, I am more of a Patriot than you" line.

KPS Reports

Very logical point KPS. However, as I said, I've never seen your names before, and your posts didn't say much about your love of country, and that is what I was curious about.

You seem very intelligent; perhaps too intelligent for me considering you feel my point "childish".

Regardless of all the facts you post, I bet most of it will be lost on the rest of us yearlings who can only see the worst in your posts, since that is what you primarily concentrate on.

Regardless, keep posting!
shane

Dear Shane:

Well, it is like this ... Mr. Yeagley complains constantly about Indian actions, such as support for Indian Gaming. Yet, he still refers to "our" when he talks about Indian society.

One does not have to approve 100 percent of one's group and its actions to still consider oneself to be a part of it. The same applies to "family."

Acceptance of the "bad habits" of family members, rather than expressions of disapproval of those habits, does not mean that one has a greater love. In fact, such a claim is rather childish, in my opinion.

But, perhaps you can accuse Mr. Yeagley of having less "love" for Indian groups, because he criticizes certain of their actions, than do others who, say, approve of Indian Gaming.

KPS Reports

KPS and Speelyi,

Thanks for answering my question in your own unique ways.

Speelyi, my questioning you has not "silenced criticism", as the continuation of this thread illustrates.

KPS, you believe we(America) should "mind our own business". You and Speelyi come across as people who don't like "our" country, "our" history, "our" methods.

You use the term "our" to indicate that you have a sense of belonging to America, yet your posts perceive otherwise.

I don't have all the answers, but I do have more love than you - blind as it may be - for a country that allows "us" so much freedom.

Regards,
Shane

Dear Mr. Yeagley:

Who are the Jews calling the Amalekites this season? Is it just the Palestinians, all Arabs, all Muslims, or are the French thrown in just for laughs?

1 Sam. 15 - [3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

KPS Reports

You think people don't know that CIA agents are the fabric of all American foreign policy operations? I assumed everyone did. No candor involved in saying it.

Judeo/Christian values are at the foundation of European and American civilization. How can you separate these values from the development of America as the greatest nation in modern history? There are reasons for greatness and strength. It's not "the economy, stupid," it's the values and laws that allow such an economy to have developed. Those values and laws, particularly in America, are from the JudeoChristian base, it seems clear to me. I think it's "stupid" not to see that economy doesn't happen outside the context of social values. To attempt to separate it is sophomoric, like Clinton.

It's not a matter of solving the world's problems. It's a matter of insuring America's best future. The world will simply not let us be isolated. Guess who also takes us into world relations? BUSINESS. BIG BUSINESS. Money goes global, inevitably. After a certain point, competition goes global. The world is where the people are.

Also, wanted to suggest you consider the CONSPIRACY forum as well. I really want to get into that, too.

In the mean time, I take Mein Kampf as the truth about the anti-Semitic sentiments. That's where the rubber met the road, so to speak. There is no anti-Semitic position anyone can take that is not explicitly address in Mein Kampf. "The Holocaust was faked" is concept clearly covered by Hitler in the form of other accusations. The anti-Holocaust business has been manifest also in anti-Indian sentiments. There were no massacres, there were no injustices. Even, there were no Indians.

I've seen it all, in one form or another. I only say, to be proud of one's race does not require the annihilation of another's.

The joke that is the supposed handover of power in Iraq.

The following is from MER:

Americans hasten political 'face-saving' withdrawal

Military occupation will continue

"CIA Agent" out front in Baghdad

Mid-East Realities - MER - www.MiddleEast.Org - 28 June 2004:

It's historic alright. A huge historic bungle that is quite literally exploding in their faces as they try to appear to go but actually stay with their carefully chosen Iraqi faces now out front. Over the weekend on ABC News one of the neocon political commentators made a little mistake and clearly called the American-appointed 'interim Iraqi Prime Minister' a "CIA agent" -- it was a rare moment of candor in public in today's confused, uptight, and secretive Washington.

Dear Mr. Yeagley:

Sorry, but I will not get into the quote game about whether the Founders were Christians or not. I have watched that game played on Internet forums far too many times, and I know that there are zillions of quotes available to support both sides of the question.

As for Christianity, I have previously stated, here, that I believe it is a disaster for Western Civilization. There are many reasons to take this position, but one of the primary reasons is that it prevents us from being able to properly defend ourselves from the "enemies of humanity," the self-designated "Chosen People," the Jews.

As for Hitler, it is nearly impossible to know what he did, or did not, do. A large part of the information that we have about Hitler comes to us "through" the Jews. And, who in their right mind would accept such a source?

However, I believe that Hitler understood that many humans feel that they need a religion. And, he also understood that he could not replace Christianity with another. So, I believe, as did the Founders of America, he understood that he had to work within the Christianity framework.

Is Christianity Jewish, you ask? Of course it is. Does anyone question that?

I thought I answered Shane completely, when I said that it is not our, or our nation's, responsibility to fix the world. And, the early Americans I quoted indicated the same position.

How do I feel about the Founders Fathers of America? I feel about them in a manner similar to the way I feel about most politicians.

But, as I stated earlier, I wish they had been a little more specific in their Founding Documents.

I brought Israel into my statement because of Washington's advice to steer clear of "passionate attachments" for nations, other than our own. I don't believe Washington was referencing any particular nation, or nations. He was simply making a general statement.

It is perfectly reasonable to accept some positions of a politician and to reject others. Does anybody agree with everything that any politican promotes? Do you agree with everything that G.W. Bush promotes?

KPS Reports

Plus, KPS, you have not answered Shane at all.

"Who do you think we/me are? How is it your/my business to 'fix the world?'"

This is evasive, it seems to me. On what basis do you regard the founding fathers? They were white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. You will have to reject them. Essentially, all of them, if you want pure Europeanism without any smattering of Judaism (i.e., Christianity). How can you even be an American?

Why bring Israel into Washington's thoughts? There wasn't any such place. In those days, even until Longfellow, everyone loved to say there would never, ever be an Israel again.

You should ask, or rather suggest, what countries was Washington alluding to? At that time. That's what important. Not having an ally in the modern global situation.

You're interpreting his thought without a valid example. You may find that your modern analogy is wholly irrelevant. And remember Washington was a Christian. Don't quote him where you agree, and ignore him where you disagree. It's the same authority behind all his thought, or none behind any.

KPS, let me try this one on you:

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this;it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/QuotesByCatPerson!ReadForm&RestrictToCategory=John+Quincy+Adams

You've made the general statement that the founding fathers were not Christian. This is denied a thousand times in their personal letters, and lives. Only two considered themselves "deists" but even they said that Christianity is what made America work, and that the constitution was written for Christians. Unless people were Christians, the whole thing would not work, and would become something else.

My point, there are quotes to be quoted. You have not given a fair balance by any means.

I suppose you'll have to go all the way and throw out Christianty because of its Jewish foundations.
That's what Hitler finally did. I mean to say, that's where your line of thought leads. I'm not saying you have any affinity with Hitler's actions, nor even accusing you of thinking in that direction. We're talking only political theory here.

You must consdier Christianity Jewish. Correct?

Dear Shane:

You ask an amazing question. You ask: "How would YOU fix the world?"

My immediate response would be, "Who do you think we/me are? How is it your/my business to 'fix the world?'"

I would like to direct your attention to some words from two early Americans.

1. GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS:

***

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. ...

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation [THINK ISRAEL] for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils!

***

2. John Quincy Adams 1821 - "Monsters to Destroy"

***

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

***

How would I fix the world? I wouldn't. Instead, I would follow the above recommendations and "mind our own business."

KPS Reports

Respect. Respecting other cultures, other views. Retreat from a binary form of thinking, in order to garner a greater base of opinions. I criticize President Bush's (and President Clinton's) actions due to the fact that they impose upon other nations a mindset particular to the United States of America. Before Iraq the previous sentence could have extended to "the West", but we have seen a German chancellor elected to spite the United States. In generating more options there will be a wider variety of cost/benefit scenarios to select from. Cost/benefit not applying strictly to finances of course, but to lives, prestige, quality of life, and respect in turn. I understand that mistakes will be made, but I am not going to silence a conservative or liberal voice in favor of my own rant. By holding to an us or them mindset there is no flexibility. Every situation becomes and advance or retreat situation. This is not conducive to any interaction in a world of subjectiveness, and transient definitions.

Ex: Saddam Hussein, dicatator-currently imprisoned, (though formerly a receiver of American aid in opposition to the Iranians during the 80's). Pervez Musharraf, dicatator-currently one of the most important allies in the war against terror. Where I would apply the dictator moniker to both individuals, there are those that would disagree. Was/is the IRA a terrorist organization? The founding fathers of the United States of America could be deemed terrorist under certain definitions of terrorism.

I understand the meat of your question Shane as a critique of being a "know-it-all". There are many problems that I don't have the answer to, I admit that. But in an attempt to silence criticism with a "What would you do?" argument is counter-intuitive to the foundation of the American value of discourse that is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. If that was not your intent then I apologize, though that is the way it is coming across in the post. And in asking Shane I am sure that you would have an answer yourself to your own question outside of parroting the present President?

Speelyi and KPS Reports,

I've never seen your names before. I've read your posts and have one question for you both.

How would YOU fix the world? You seem to have a talent at critiquing other's efforts, especially Bush's, so how would you make the Earth a better place?

Very curious,
Shane

First and foremost understand that Clinton was a domestic President who won his office from an established foreign policy President under the motto "It's the economy stupid". I would offer alternate causality for the scenarios that you display.

The actions listed in contentions 1-3 are all Al Qaeda motivated and derived from Operation Desert Shield/Storm and the resultant occupation of Saudi Arabia by American forces. Osama Bin Laden began his movement under these auspices. Remember that the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate the Khobar Towers bombing due to the fact that the Saudi's wanted to do it under their own jurisdiction. Also note that Saudi Arabia was created by the recognition of King Saud by Wahabi clerics. The school of Wahab is deemed extremist though not the most fanatical. In the fundamental islamic soil the thought of infidels in the land of the two holy cities is what drove the creation of Al Qaeda.

Now as for the Balkans, remember that Clinton inherited Bosnia from former President H.W. Bush. He also inherited Somalia under the UNITAF.

While the foreign policies of President Clinton are not without flaw, ex: supporting the KLA, not intervening in Rwanda, pursuit of globalization. Though in the light of foreign opinion of the United States, there is without a doubt a higher opinion of President Clinton.

As well the scenarios that are provided are under the lens of hindsight. If in fact the attacks on the three targets are preventable, then shouldn't 9-11 been preventable as well under the paradigm that you provide sir? If the current Bush administration had paid attention to documents that labeled Al-Qaeda as a top terrorist priority instead of attempting to broadly approach the subject, (ironic in light of the examples that you provide), there would have been a greater possibility that 9-11 could have been prevented. Once again though this is near fallacious as it is made under the premise of hindsight.

As a side note, I was on stand-by to support the unit that was providing security at the two embassies should another attack occur. I am fully aware of what was going on during Clinton's watch.

In comparison to President Bush's presidency I would ask you to address:
1)the Patriot Act
2)the failure to secure Afghanistan
3)WMD v. Hans Blix
4)Abu Ghraib & the torture memo
5)Enron & Energy planning
6)Halliburton & profiteering
7)Extensive Deployment of National Guard (who will guard the nation now?)
8)Massive Deficit to pay for this conflict

. The result in Clinton's case is a messy dress and damaged office prestige. The result in the Bush case is over 800 American casualties, numerous Iraqi casualties.

Define the 1st WTC bombing.
Define the USS Cole bombing.
Define the US Embassy in Kenya bombing (US Embassies are US SOIL!)
Define an unneeded war in Serbia

All under Clinton's watch!

Ethnocentrism reeks of provincialism in the most base form. Though I disagree with KPS' base anti-semitism, I do agree that you are approching this issue with blinders on Yeagley.

If I was an Iraqi I would view any invasion of my homeland (especially under the notion that we had considered the entire population of Iraq evil pre-war), as detrimental to my cultural identity. I would fight tooth and nail against people who were opening prisons and torturing the inmates. Remember that these people had been telling their stories after their release prior to the picture debacle, only they were ignored. It is hard to win hearts and minds with rapes, beatings, humiliation, and occupation.

To view it from a strictly American standpoint is to disallow a subjective look at the possibilities that these people may not want us there. For us to force ourselves upon them after deposing their leader and expect them to embrace us with elation is as ludicrous as the noblisse-oblige that rationalized cutting off NDN hair, and washing NDN mouths out with soap because the "all knowing" American needed to help the "savage" evolve and assimilate into America's superior culture.

The war in Iraq is viewed by many nations (as based on a not to distant pew report) as malignant. I would claim that the current war is as imperial as the land grabs of Manifest Destiny. There certainly is Christian rhetoric flying about launched by George W. Bush. There is the occupation of a sovereign nation, where the power is turned over to local government while there are still over one-hundred thousand troops on Iraqi soil.

Perhaps I am wrong and this war will have the ends that are desired by all people. There will be freedom and peace in the Middle East as has been unknown since the formation of Israel. Iraq will be a stable nation that represents its people and not the corporate interests of the Western world.

At the moment though the 9-11 Commission has thoroughly riddled the current Administration's assertions that warrant the war. When I perform a weighing of the most hated liberal "Bubba" v. the most despised conservative "Shrub": both lied as found by the US government, one about getting fellated the other about the ties between Saddam and WMD. At the moment this is the value that I consider paramount due to the fact that I served this nation (natives serve more than any other) I feel that a critique is necessary. The result in Clinton's case is a messy dress and damaged office prestige. The result in the Bush case is over 800 American casualties, numerous Iraqi casualties.

Yeagley please do not use O'Reilly to support a counter-argument at this point after attempting to use an ethos claim against KPS attempting to connect Saddam and Osama. Not to mention, as I have previously posted, intelligence analysts have stated prior to the war that Saddam would never turn over WMD to terrorists as it would remove power from his hands, (under the forementioned demonization mentioned by KPS this notion is logical). As well Saddam was a secular leader, unlike an Ayatollah, who was viewed as the enemy of Al Ansar Islam.

Dear Mr. Yeagley:

If you are so offended by "The New York Times," perhaps you should discuss it with your buddies, the Jews, such as the Sulzberger family, who own the newspaper.

KPS Reports

Dear Mr. Yeagley:

You state: "KPS, you're quoting the NYT as if it is reliable."

Did I quote from the New York Times? Show me, please. Show me something I "quoted" from the New York Times.

KPS Reports

Dear Mr. Yeagley:

The Iraqis properly see the American invasion of their nation as the work of the Jews.

However, you state: "Another great one. A South Korean nun holds a sign and a candle to protest and mourn the late South Korean hostage Kim Sun-il. This is in front of U.S. embassy in Seoul June 28, 2004. Kim was decapitated in Iraq after South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun rejected militants' demand to pull military medics and engineers out of Iraq and drop plans to send more troops."

Certainly, it should be obvious to all that the South Korean, Kim Sun-il, was "asking" for what happened to him. He went into a war zone, working for the invaders-conquerors-occupiers.

Note the AP article called "Iraqi Militants Behead Korean Hostage"
( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040622/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_south_korea )
which states: "Kim, 33, worked for Gana General Trading Co., a South Korean company supplying the U.S. military in Iraq."

It was a very foolish thing that Kim was doing, as he discovered.

KPS Reports

Well, here we go again.
KPS, you're quoting the NYT as if it is reliable. I suppose if you read nothing else, you won't have anyway of knowing it isn't. Those up with the news KNOW the NYT is about the most biased liberal paper in the world. I think it's distasteful to use the NYT as a reference these days. Smacks of provincialism..

Now, I have a piano lesson to teach, so I'll get back on line later this afternoon.

Dear Mr. Yeagley:

You state: "However, the last statement is curious. 'America these days is like death. Nobody can escape from it.' Here Mr. al-Sabti reveals all. Nobody wants death. America is like death. Nobody wants America."

But, what if Mr. al-Sabti is correct? And, I state that he is.

Why is America, today, "like death"? Here is the answer.

***

Ariel Sharon: Israeli Prime Minister, Israeli Hebrew radio Kol Yisrael (Oct 3, 2001): "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

***

As I have stated before, St. Paul described the Jews as being "contrary to all men." That means "in opposition to" or "against." To put it another way, the Jews see the world as an "us against them" situation.

***

Paul The Apostle (The Holy Bible -- KJV -- 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15):

[14] For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
[15] Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

***

And, as Ariel Sharon states: "We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

And, that is why the world sees America as being like death. The world correctly sees that the Jews control America and that the Jews are using America, and its power, in their "us against them" war on humanity.

KPS Reports

Dear Mr. Yeagley:

You state: "The remarks are willfully, criminally blind to the unique horrors of Saddam Hussein and those horrors continued by the cowardly terrorist murderers."

It has long been the practice in America to "demonize" the opposition. This is a rather human, but evil, characteristic, I'm afraid. In addition, the tendency is to pick an "individual" to be especially savaged, as the representative of the opposition.

And, of course, that is what America has done to Saddam.

It is my belief that Saddam is/was an intelligent, informed and reasonable man, who was good for Iraq, for the Arabs and for the Middle East.

I also believe that this can be seen in the transcript of Saddam's interview with the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, which was printed in the "New York Times." This interview took place just before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. ( http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1990/900923-glaspie.htm )

I would also like to draw attention to a recent article by Jude Wanniski called "Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent."
( http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asparticleid=3643 )

Among other things, Wanniski states:

***

To tell you the truth, John, as far as I can recall, there have been no assertions of the “brutality” of Saddam’s regime from anyone but the Iraqi exiles associated with Ahmet Chalabi or those Kurds who fought on the Iranian side in the Iran/Iraq war. There are all kinds of anecdotes about Saddam doing dreadful things, entire books written about them, but the source of all of them is the same pool of people who have been feeding faked “evidence” of WMD and Al Qaeda connections to our government. Can it be that there is nothing that Saddam has done all these years that cannot be justified as the permissible acts of a head of state acting in defense of his people. Yes, he invaded Kuwait in 1990, but in retrospect that was a really easy war to justify, given the economic warfare being conducted against Iraq by the Emir of Kuwait. I mean easy in relation to now having to justify this American invasion and destruction of good chunks of Iraq, on false premises.

President Bush still has it in his head that Saddam tried to assassinate his father in 1993, but if you did the smallest bit of digging you would find this was a hoax perpetrated by the neo-cons. The President also has it in his head that Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds in 1988, killing tens of thousands of them with poison gas and/or machine guns. If you lifted a little pinky to get to the bottom of this story, you will find it is also made of neo-con whole cloth. I’m not making wild assertions, John, because I have spent countless hours on this subject and find no loopholes left. Just call Human Rights Watch and ask if they have yet found the mass graves of those tens of thousands of Kurds and they will sheepishly admit they are still looking.

***

But, then, I also agree with Justin Raimondo, when he says that the entire Iraqi affair was just a fraud on the American people to get them to do the dirty work of destroying Iraq for Israel.

Justian Raimondo writes, in his article "The Stab in the Back - Israel plays the Kurdish card – and Americans are caught in the crossfire"
( http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2859 ):

***

This war was always about enhancing Israel's strategic position, and nothing else: not oil, not democracy, not WMD. The goal was to extend Israel's sphere of influence, and that is precisely what is occurring. To the victor go the spoils, and Hersh's revelations highlight the Israelis as the real winners of this war:

***

Sending American boys to die for the Jews, yet again. Will Americans never wake up? Why are we so gullible?

KPS Reports

It's increasingly looking like many cultures and countries have found in the USA a convenient scapegoat for their own ills or the problems of the world. Of course, they have merely followed the example of the American left...