Immoral Start Begets Immoral Mess

I was on the Disney forum/blog and Speed123 started telling everyone about the Neo-cons,Zionists,Jewish lobbies, The Realm,and cluster bombs. When fellow bloggers asked him why this nonsence, he called everyone a Zionist,Neo-con,or member of the Jewish lobby. I fear Speed123 is a couple of clowns short of a full circus. Could we address Balmer's essay ?

It could be worse. Imagine if things had worked out in Iraq. Bush and God would have gotten all the credit. Fundamentalist Christians would be in ecstasy -- and in ascendancy. Some moderate Christians would become fundamentalists and Republicans, based on the obvious evidence of the God’s intervention and his obvious blessings on born-again Bush. Faith-based initiatives would proliferate, funded by a grateful and obsequious congress.

As it is, Bush is getting some blame, but God is off the hook, as usual. He gets off scot-free when things don’t work out. Free will is the villain then, or Satan.

Paganplace,

Hmmm, tis all about the War (Police Action) against terror. Live with it!!

Fred Thompson is coming to the rescue.

And you were bred, born, and brainwashed in what religion but almost saved by Bill Clinton and Al Gore?

All that other stuff aside: it does remain that the best solution to the Iraq mess is to admit it was a colossal screwup, if not admitting the deceit, and getting the help of the international community that Bush thumbed our collective noses at when they warned him what would happen.

Part of the problem here is that the troops there are *American,* and all that's unfortunately come to mean.

As for us, well, going back up to the top, here:

""Surely my good Christian leaders couldn't be telling big lies.""

This, I think, is one of the key challenges for the American people, right now... A big part of what makes the Big Lie such an effective psychological trap is that it enlists the *pride* of the deceived to defend the deception.

I think that's why there's a common theme of *admitting the mistake* from many of the spiritual folks here.

Speed123,

Why read Benedict's book when what he wrote has already been written in greater detail by Father Brown.

Just what I thought, concerned...I recommend Benedicts book and instead of being openminded (i.e. not brainwashed) you recommend two others in return that push your theories...

End of story....vote ron paul.

"For what it's worth I think it an interesting symptom of 'goritis' that some of the posters here are inclined to believe we are the same person simply because we believe similar things about Iraq."

Clever attempt at a red herring GaryD/Concerned...NOT! (I got that from the Gary half.)

I wouldn't rule out that you (plural) are also Frank Collins...and Sybil, AND Christine Sizemore.

AS I told you before enough and I've debated enough of his other dupes on other web sites to where I had a vested interest in finding out as much as I could about his theories and calling a lot of them theories based on the archeology and anthropology is giving them undo credit.

For what it's worth I think it an interesting symptom of 'goritis' that some of the posters here are inclined to believe we are the same person simply because we believe similar things about Iraq.

GARYD,

And how many of Professor Crossan's 25 books have you read? Or do you also suffer from "googlitis"?

SPEED123,

B16's "new" book is simply the NT rehashed once again. For a better buy, see Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, 1997 (878 pages). The book is "Catholic" approved (imprimatur and Nihil obstat) and more than likely was used by B16 to prep his book (416 pages). Father Brown also reviews the historical Jesus movement in more than two pages.

Another "view from a recent review":

"For this reason, Crossan's new book _God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now_ (2007) represents far more forward-oriented thinking about Christian tradition than does Ratzinger's well-publicized new book. "

Crossan hasn't even got most of the uhistory right let alone the reality. For every scholar that agress with Crossan there are a dozen that don't.

Hey Concerned,

While I think your politics is completely wrong headed, I admire your search for truth and knowledge.

Obviously Crossan has impressed you with his work; however, he only presents one side - the "historical" ie his interpretation of the history surrounding Jesus - and leaves out the other very important aspects.

If you feel like being objective and openminded, pick up pope benedict's new book on his personal meditations on Jesus - dont worry, it is not infalable (a decree that was used only once in 1870 by the way). He addresses the issue of scholarship and writtings on Jesus within the first two pages.

Vote RON PAUL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

Anon,

"Crossanization" of the NT is the new Reality of Christianity and should be considered a branch of biblical history.

I highly recommend reading Professor Crossan's book, Who is Jesus?, followed by some of other 25 books especially The Historical Jesus, the Excavation of Jesus (with Professor Reed) and The Search for Paul (with Professor Reed). The scholarship, which always requires the complete reviews of the texts and archeology of the historical moments, are outstanding even though Professor Crossan's conclusions may not be the same as yours. They are, however, analogous to those of other On Faith panelists e.g. Professors Borg and Frederiksen. For a rather complete list of books written about the historical Jesus, see
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html.

Please note the Professor Wright's books are also listed on the referenced site. Professor Wright is another On Faith panelist who is the orthodox historical Jesus scholar. He and Professor Crossan have debated their conclusions many times in public forums.

"Crossanization" - sure sounds like a cult.

I will read it all and enjoy Borg; however, I have seen a bit of Corssan's work and am not impressed. It is pure revisionism on the message of Christianity and mostly an attempt to sell "controvsial" theories a la Pagels and, in mass media, Dan Brown.

SPEED123,

My only recommendation is "Crossanization". Things will become much clearer. Even many Catholic theology professors have come to the Reality of it all. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen but have arrived there by a different approach. Theology classes at Catholic U and/or Notre Dame might get you started down the right path.

Concern,

I was born as a Cathlic, left the church and explored liberalism in college, now I am back and will be fighting the good fight for the rest of my life. Mid-twenties, Catholic male.

PS - you want brainwashing check out our educational system and media (it is not "liberal" media, it is corporate/ethically owned media that supports war, Israel, materialism, radical individualism, and attacks on any still powerful cohesive Christian (the Church) group as they are competition for hearts and minds of the people)

Garyd @June 22, 2007 4:17 AM: Your response "What happened to the Christians in the Holy land? Well during the 9th to 12th centuries most were forced to either convert to Islam or flee by economic and political persuasion. Mostly they fled. those that remained were largely bred out of existance to the point that by the Time Mark Twain took his trip to the Holy Land Their probably weren't 20 k people living there full time." is NONSENSE. If Mark Twain said what you keep posting, he was obviously either blind or never went to the Holy Lands. Not to mention that the nonsense you just repeated has been refuted by other posters. Repeating an idiocy does not make it true.

But more than nonsense, it is dishonest, as the discussion has been about Israel. Prior to the founding of Israel most of the population of the Holy Lands was Palestinian, many of whom are Christians (yes, even to this day).

So, I will repeat what I posted to you on June 21, 2007 9:33 AM:

"Garyd: You question that Israel is an oppressive regime. Out of curiosity, can you please explain what happened to the CHRISTIAN (not Muslim) population of the Holy Lands?

For that matter, what do you consider the settlements policy in the West Bank to be? Please account for the establishments of the 'bantuns' that Israel has created there for the Palestinians, who have access to only 45% of the territory, and it is not even contiguous!"

Try to be responsive, and stop exhibiting ignorance.

Speed123,

Oops, sorry about that. A Hermit and you blend together after a while.

And may I ask what cult were you bred, born and brainwashed in??

AMviennaVA

What happened to the Christians in the Holy land? Well during the 9th to 12th centuries most were forced to either convert to Islam or flee by economic and political persuasion. Mostly they fled. those that remained were largely bred out of existance to the point that by the Time Mark Twain took his trip to the Holy Land Their probably weren't 20 k people living there full time.

And, of course, the devil himself, Cheney...

You addressed that to the wrong poster, Concerned.

As for your comments on Islam, I have read plenty and they are filled with irrational hate and sterotypes that only Goebbels would find appropriate.

Yet you cry wolf and attack with vicious slander if one points out the very reall effects of a powerful ethnic group and lobby with in the US.

We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others, eh?

Concerning brainwashing, you have it reversed.

And as for service to their country, Feith, Libby, Wolfowitz, Perle should be tried for war crimes and treason.

Mr Ballmer

You hit this one right on the head.

Completely correct analysis of why this was the furthest thing from that rarest of birds, A Just War.

And yes, gradual and regular withdrawal, with reparations for our catastrophic mistakes, is by far the best course.

No one can demonstrate that we have improved the Situation in Iraq on Even One Day of our occupation.

We should engage in negotiation with Iran and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Syria and try to get world cooperation in helping Iraq to stabilize.

But our presence, as occupier, has not shown ONE shred of justification of being effective by the results. Get Out, in a measured and predictable way, and engage the rest of the world, seriously for once, in trying to work for humaneness towards the Iraqi people.

And GaryB, you have NO idea what you are talking about, my liege.

A Hermit,

Take some time to read my comments on Islam. Typically, I criticize the foundation of said religion e.g. their belief in "pretty wingy talking thingies and a similar belief in devils, the "demons of the demented". Their operating manual is also the subject of much of my criticism of Islam since it gives the "koranic" crazies free license to hunt you and me down for any type of criticism making said manual and said followers very dangerous to our well being.

As with Christians, atheists and other cults, Muslims are typically bred, born and brainwashed to believe their way is the correct way. Unfortunately the Muslim way is typically in the form of "death to unbelievers" unlike other cults which is something many commentators to include myself mention at length with good reason. I was a bred, born and brainwashed Catholic until I was finally "Crossanized" into the wonderful world of Reality.

And please note, I do not criticize one's right to complain about powerful lobbies. I do object, however, to criticizing individual members of a religion because of their religion, their names and their service on behalf of our country.

I love the hypocricy of Concerned...

At one point he condems legitimate criticism of the politics/lobbying of a powerful group/religion - and says that such criticism = hate.

On the other hand, Concerned posts many, many hateful, slanderous comments about Muslims all over these forums and sterotypes an entire religion of one billion people - labeling them as devils, subversive, foreign, evil etc. etc.

Talk about a double standard!

Keep denying the truth, Concerned the Christian Now Liberated, it just makes you seem more desperate to cover it up.

PS - there are no papal states to for the bishops to lobby for only theological and social issues the are univeral to ALL humans. Immigration, poverty, right to life etc.

AIPAC and other Jewish lobbies have a sovereign Jewish state to "protect" and interests of a specific ethnic group to promote.

Mary C,

Considering the number of powerful lobbies we have in this country and following your reasoning, we would be all be taking Viagra pills at $20/pop, have one telephone company, one cable company, one law firm, one doctor per million patients, one dentist per 500,000 patients, rice and potatoes at $20/lb, and gasoline at $20.00/gallon.

But being a lobbyist is a great job, pay is great and it does keep the employment rate down. Hopefully you are not slandering lobbyists being a good Chrisian and all? I wonder what the Catholic Bishops spend on lobbyists each year. Hmmm, I believe I will write my Bishop and ask since I am assuming such data are available. They would not keep that secret would they?

I do believe most of my contributions to the Catholic Respect for Life groups actually are used for lobbying at the federal and state levels.
Well at least my contributions to the local Womens' Home (for unwed mothers) is not "lobby oriented".

Danny B,

Read all of Speed123 commentaries and the assumptions about Jewish names. You are correct, he does not know my name but if he did he would send me off the to gas chambers simply because my name happens to be Jewish.

BoyGone,

As usual, I find it utterly impossible to place a value on your contributions.

Allow me to take a page from your book of witticism:

I'll only be happy when the last of your second rate scholarship is strangled with the entrails of your lack of cleverness.

Concerned....etc.

No need to resort to slander just because Speed123 can run rings around you! And saying that the Israel lobby in America is extremely powerful hardly constitutes anti-semitism. AIPAC itself tells us that on its website.

Noting that the main movers in the neoconservative movement were both Jewish and intensely pro-Israel is stating the obvious. The definition of neoconservatives as told by George HW Bush to George W. was "in a word: Israel."

It's my view that the power of the Israel lobby is the result of a defect in American politics--Middle East foreign policy has been outsourced from the elected heads of state to a special interest group. Thus Israel has become completely identified with the US in the eyes of world--and especially Muslim--opinion, so totally that the American attack on Iraq--its second invasion of a Muslim country in less than two years and completely unnecessary--was bound to fail.

And so it did...Iraq has been the worst American foreign policy blunder of at least a generation. Stating this hard fact is not anti-Semitic. It is truthful.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated: I was looking at specific comments. You and Speed123 must have a history of exchanges.

Well if it isn't Danny Boy, living under a threat of hell and stuck as a bug on flypaper.

Concerned is the most frequently used Jewish first name. Liberated is the universal last name of all Jews. That's how we know CTCL has a Jewish first and last name. Sheeh!

Concerned posts: "For starters Speed123 considers all persons with Jewish last names to be zionists seeking global domination. He would have all of us gassed, me included since I have both a Jewish first and last name but have no Jewish blood in my family."

This baseless accusation is even more tired than the constant presumtion that your writing is worth c/c/p-ing ad infinitum.

How does he know either of your names to make the assumption that you are Jewish?

AMviennaVA:

For starters Speed123 considers all persons with Jewish last names to be zionists seeking global domination. He would have all of us gassed, me included since I have both a Jewish first and last name but have no Jewish blood in my family.

Garyd: You question that Israel is an oppressive regime. Out of curiosity, can you please explain what happened to the CHRISTIAN (not Muslim) population of the Holy Lands?

For that matter, what do you consider the settlements policy in the West Bank to be? Please account for the establishments of the 'bantuns' that Israel has created there for the Palestinians, who have access to only 45% of the territory, and it is not even contiguous!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated: What are the antisemitic comments by 'Speed123'. Do you consider any criticism of the policies of the Israeli government to be anti-semitism?

Speed123,

Repeating my observation on Professor Thistlethwaite's commentaries about your constant anti-Semitic harangue,

"You slander yourself. And you have the audacity to paste yourself as "even-keeled" and "deep-thinking"? Your KKK and Nazi membership cards say otherwise.

"Yep Mubaraks oppressive no argument their but then again those seeking to replace him have indicated they'd be no better and would likely on most fronts be worse."

Spoken like a true Neo Con, Gary. "Sure, we are supporting a oppressive and corrupt regime....but it sure is better than letting the Egyptian people elect those they wish to represent them."

THIS is the problem and the short sighted colonial, totalitarian policy that causes terrorism.

But, they you like to believe in your little head that terrorism HAS NO CAUSE...just pure evil....

What emotional propaganda you like to put out --- just like our media.

"Never ask why" should be the motto of dummies like yourself, Gar and Concerned.

Are you too the same poster???

Interesting...

"nice post, Gary!" "you're not so bad yourself, Concerned"....

HA.

As for Israels response, they LEVELED the entire southern portion of Lebanon and used cluster bombs in civilian areas....I suppose you can justify that as well. There is a thing called proportionate response and the respecting of international treaties which you claim that Israel is above.

This is a case of my moral universalism vs. your moral particularism. There is no need to carry on the debate with with tribal propaganda spewing mofos such as yourselve(s).

PS - quit pulling the holocaust card to restrict debate and free speech. Talk about totalitarianism...

Speed123,

I am not a Zionist nor Jewish either. I do have a Jewish first and last name with no Jewish blood in the family. Because of my name, I have felt and heard the sting of discrimination from people like you. I recommend emigrating to some Islamic state where your anti-Semitism would be tolerated assuming you will first bow five times a day to Allah and his hallucinating Arab/oil "discoverers".

First I'm not a zionist. I'm not even Jewish.

Meanwhile Hezzbollah launched more than a hundred rockets from the southern part of Lebanon out of civilian areas largely in the hope of provoking such nonsense from Israel's kneejerk detractors. You know speedy blind nazi wannabes like you.

Yep Mubaraks oppressive no argument their but then again those seeking to replace him have indicated they'd be no better and would likely on most fronts be worse.

GEt your head out of Adolph's rear end and examine the situation critically had the Hezzies not kidnapped the soldiers there would have been no war. Israel always responds to such provocations and anyone who questions their right to do so is either a bigot or a species of fool.

You'd have to go to another paper/magazine for that type of critical thinking of pundits editors....and not the NYTs either.

The "liberal" press did a good deal of cheerleading for this policy in the middle east.

Perhaps it is because of the families who own these papers???

Richard:

You're not alone in this. I ask the same thing all the time.

I am asking myself:

where have all these critical voices 4 years ago?

when it meant some level of backbone to speak against the collective neurosis?

to speak out for reason?

to inquire the facts?

to surface doubts?

Nobody can say there wasn't enough indication that something wasn't right here.

So that it never happens again.

Hmm...didnt Israel just destory major areas of Lebanon and cluster bomb civilian populations because three of there soldiers were attacked...

Israel INVENTED the pre-emptive war and is currently in violation of 30 plus UN resolutions and has a 40 year occuption of Palestine.

As for Egypt, not aggressive...repressive and corrupt, you Zionist dolt.

The Notion that Israel is an agressive regime is absurd. If they were and agressive or monsterous regime. The violence your avearge Israeli faces on a day to day basis would have ended twenty years ago because the survivors -all 10% 0f them - of the Gaza Massacre would have figured out that jerking the Israelis around was nothing but a quick and painful trip to the boneyard.

HOw is Egypt aggressive? They haven't gone to war with anyone but the murderers of Anwar Sadat since '73. Given the Muslim brotherhood expecting 3rd worlders to use US methods of Jurisprudence when fighting for their survival is asking a bit much.

And let's not forget that the people on the other side aren't offering to make your average Egyptian freer but less free.

Gary states:

"If we don't provide them a chance to establish a means of government other than thugocracy or theocracy then every so often whether we like it or not either the theocrats or the Depots will continue to use us and Israel and whoever else is available as a scape goat for all the crap that is wrong in their country"

Oh, really?

Who exactly do you think is proping up all of the regimes in the area?

How many billions do we provide the Egyptians and the Israelis to prop their repressive regims?

How much military support do we give the Saudis?

And, dont forget, billions of billions into Iraq.

Didn't we fund Saddam during the war with Iran?

And the Afghan rebels now "radicals" during the Soviet invasion?

For a guy who likes to lecture other on history, you seem to be forgeting much of it yourself.

Or, you might prefer to label Muslims as "evil" and ignore legitimate motives behind their recent resistence.

Black and white is probably all you can fathom...

Well, Gary, I'd say that's true, but that doesn't mean the invasion of Iraq was in any way a *good idea,* or that *staying there simply to try and justify the screwup and lies* is going to *help* anyone.

Which is mostly what I've seen, ever-shifting excuses and 'justifications' for a colossal and ongoing *screwup* justified by lies.

Whatever happened to the 'greeted as liberators?' 'This reconstruction will pay for itself,' the 'Last Throes of the Insurgency,' the 'This is not a civil war?'

Time to call it a done deal, call it what it is, (I like Jon Stewart's characterization of it as a 'Catastrof***.' :) ) and see what we can do next.

We sir is anyone who gives a tinkers dam about what happens to the people in the Middle East.

I do. If we don't provide them a chance to establish a means of government other than thugocracy or theocracy then every so often whether we like it or not either the theocrats or the Depots will continue to use us and Israel and whoever else is available as a scape goat for all the crap that is wrong in their country because the alternative - accepting the fact that they are the ones that are messing things up - will get them dead and frankly a heck of a lot of the rulers in the Middle East including some of our allies deserve it. And as long as they insist on making us scape goats every once in a while some nutbar is going to take them seriously and try to do something about it.

GaryD writes:

"We need to try to find a way to change the way to do governance in the Middle East or we're going to be looking at this problem every so often for the next hundred years or more."

If the above statement is not imperial then I dont know what is!

Who is "we" Gary? You and Israel...

These are Islamic countries and they should govern themselves however they feel fit.

They will sell us oil because they have to and Israel is a big girl now, she can take care of herself.

How is your current policy of imperalism and occupation now working in Iraq now?

The Iraqis have every right to fight us until we leave and to control their own matters regardless of what we think.

You, Gary, are no conservative; no conservative would advocate this type of reckless foreign intervention and meddling.

Neo Conservative is more like it...time to come out of the closet, buddy.

Umm, yeah, Gary, that's why Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out and didn't accept Saddam's surrender. ...so he could lie repeatedly about the pretexts for the war and walk in there with *no plan to actually help anybody.* There was something 'righteous' about that?

Good Job Pagan if we were indeed the ruthless, money grubbers you think us to be this war would long sense be over. We would simply have killed as many as necessary to get the rest to decide that messing with us was a really really bad idea. After all it worked for the Mongols and it worked after a fashion for the communists. So why shouldn't it work for us.

However neither imperialism, greed or any of your other imaginary beliefs had anything to do with this.

What did go into this in no small part was the rational thought process that says Saddam is a mudering tyrant who has started 2 wars and killed 100k + of his own people can we really trust him to not start some more crap if we take our troops out of the Middle East - specifically Saudi Arabia- and go home? The answer obvious to anyone who could follow well written directions to find the heel of a boot was of course NO!

We need to try to find a way to change the way to do governance in the Middle East or we're going to be looking at this problem every so often for the next hundred years or more.

Then again, come to think of it, I was actually pretty seriously ill and mostly-bedridden at the time, so, maybe I can excuse myself for not seeing exactly how many 'yes-men' the Joint Cheifs were stacked with.

I'll have to admit, TJ, I didn't protest enough, either, (though I did.) I think I was just pretty inured to the idea that the Republicans were at least *competent* at being greedy, imperialistic bastards who'd probably had a nasty but effective plan in place just waiting for an excuse, to replace one tinpot dictator of their own making with another more controllable one.

Kind of had an "Oh, get it over with," attitude, in part. Just cause I knew that people were out for blood, being threatened with imaginary nukes, and told God was on their side.

I mean, *darn.* Who knew they *sucked so bad at actually pulling it off?* Guess they had 'faith' after all.

BGONE foams at the mouth:

"You're real close to the solution of the entire problem and victory in the war on terror. There is no substitute for victory."

Are you saying that you have found the "final solution," BGONE????

It looks like Tim is a moral particularist as opposed to a moral universalist.

There is objective categories for a just war but only if you are a moral universalist....something that Wolfowitz and the neo cons definitely are not.

As for BGONE, you are SO right - why didnt we think of this before? We should just try to kill them all with cluster bombs a la Israel in southern Lebanon.

You are totalitarian zionist, arent you BGONE? Kill as much and often as necessary to protect your tribe...

Yes Mr. Balmer as the left continues to ignore the fact that we were still at war with The regime of Saddam Hussein.

TIM: You did real good until #5. Those Islamic militants aren't living on air or blowing things up with wishes. Somebody is supporting them, right there, right now and they call themselves civilians. Rethink that part. You're real close to the solution of the entire problem and victory in the war on terror. There is no substitute for victory.

Agreed PaganPlace. I'm perfectly willing to take my share of the blame for not doing enough to stop this act of brutal aggression.In addition to what we owe the Iraqis, we owe something similar to the coalition soldiers and families whose lives we've wrecked and wasted too.

I don't have a problem with the fundamentalists or the slimy politicians. Neocons, cabals, and conspiracies don't bother me much either. We (the people) have the power to deal with them. But when a significant portion of 'we' (that would be you moderate Christians) is gullible enough to have their religious weakness exploited in the voting booth, we end up with what we've ended up with.

1. Is the use of force taken as the last resort? Yes, because of multiple UN resolutions and threat of WMD.

2. Is it a defensive war? Yes, because the war on terror started on 911. They attacked us just like at Pearl Harbor. It continues and Iraq is just one battlefield on the war on terror.

3. Is there a reasonable chance of success? Yes, there is already success for the Kurds and the South. Success is only a matter of time for the Sunni Triangle.

4. Is the amount of force roughly proportional to the provocation? Yes, this is a war on terror and over 3,000 died alone on 911. Millions will die if militant Islamics get a WMD and plant it in Washington DC or NYC. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people and he had to be stopped. Use of force was the only way to stop him.

5. Finally, and most important, have provisions been made, as much as possible, to shield civilians from being collateral damage? Yes, unprecedented measures have been taken to spare the lives of civilians.

See how silly it is to believe in the concept of a "just war" and come up with a criterion. Anybody can make up rules and then using their own philosophy arrive at a conclusion that any war is a just war. Islam is the best at this cause all you got to do is draw a cartoon about Mohamed or write a negative book about Islam and you have a "just war" on your hands. I believe the term is an oxymoron.

You want to know the real definition of a just war? A just war is a war that you supported (or claim you supported after the fact) where your side ends up victorious. This is the real operative historical definition used by society for a just war. Not something like we minimized civilian casualties, although this is honorable.

Forget all this stuff about if this war is a just or un-just. The thing that matters is the future because we are in it like it or not. Do we have a moral obligation to stay is the question on the docket? The only moral obligation we have is to try our best to help the Iraqi people. If that includes staying then stay if it means leaving, then leave. That means we will muck our way through this (staying if we have to) until we get a break or someone in a leadership position actually finds a new plan that works and executes it. All wars end we just don't know when or how and this is why it is truly impossible to which specific actions are moral and which one are not.

That's why it'd be a 'new trick,' I think. :)

speed123, who gave the chimp a second term?

The 'Greatest nation on Earth' ...to the extent 'greatness' counts... is still here. The current management clearly sucks, and the religious *madness* that it's tied to needs to take a *big step back, but... ...there are still many here who keep to the American ideals that could save us.

Time to learn a new trick, though.

Humility. Actually admitting a screwup for once and recovering our wits.

*That* would be great.

PaganPlace I agree.

The instrument of reparations would need to ensure it went to infrastructure and such. A UN peace keeping force (paid for by America as the panelist suggested) would perhaps stand a better chance.

As Mr. Mark stated we can no longer claim greatest nation on Earth status. Ali reclaimed the heavy weight title after losing it. Now it’s our turn.

To wit, that much-scorned-and-weakened-by Bushies...

United Nations.

I'm afraid, Rob, that the answer may be elusive because there *is* no good answer.

I don't think we can 'buy' a solution, even, for the Iraqi people. Even with 'reparations' which would probably only be resented at best, or used against our interests, in great likelihood.

Could be that the answer would be in using the resources we're throwing away there to make reparations to the *international* community, which is probably the only entity that *can* fix this mess we made.

A start might be using these resources to try and address climate change and other outstanding problems that face the entire *world,* in exchange for cleaning up our mess in a way which doesn't involve hated American faces in Iraq to shoot at.

‘Just war’ is a convenient concept created by man to try and exert his will onto others. A truly enlightened being would not accept ‘just war’ as an alternative. That being said we have already traveled the war route and are now in the current predicament.

The moral position is to help the Iraqi people become safe and repay them for the damage to their country. Deciding on an action plan that will achieve this is the real question and the answer may prove elusive.

One of the other panelists suggested a referendum for the Iraqi people to decide if and how long we stay in Iraqi. That may be a good starting point.

Tim writes:

"If anything, we have taken more provisions during this war than in any war in history to protect civilians. Not because Bush is such a great guy or that the Military wants to but because we have more precise weapons"

You mean precise weapons like cluster bombs, and AC130 gunship mounted rapid fire cannons armed with depleted uranium projectiles?

Yeah, you go on believing in the "precision guided weapons" myth if it helps you sleep at night...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-cluster-bomb-cover_x.htm

Unfortunately I do not believe that we CAN do anything to improve things. The mayhem, by now, must run its course.

Paganplace: I thought that God listened to Bush.

I agree with the author on this: what I *don't* see happening is a real and nuanced argument that says anything beyond 'We can't leave now, cause bad things would happen.'

I see no indication that *staying* will really make things better. It seems we're throwing more bodies and money at the situation *just to try and vindicate lies and mistakes.*

I'd love to hear if there's anything we can do there that would actually *help* at this point, but no one can seem to articulate any such situation.

I feel the damage is already done, and all the King's horses and all the King's men won't fix it.

You were warned, but you chose to believe Bush was 'talking to God.'

What now.

Since it is PC to blame "Christians" for this war (Catholics were opposed, btw), let us also look at the intelectuals that planned and initiated the conflict:

The Neo Conservatives. (misnomer if there ever was one as these men were looking to spread revolution and cleansing through fire)

This is a Jewish intellectual movement (started by Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz). These men advocated American imperalism and unquestioning support of Israel.

Geo-politically, it was in the interest of Israel to take out Saddam. (Like Iran, Iraq was never a threat to us and the neo cons knew this - hence the trumped up intel on WMDs and connections to al queda.)

Economically, it was in the interst of American corporations for the clean-up and take overs of Iraqi companies)

It is called moral particularism.

Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and other planners and cheerleaders in the media did not let their people down.

Let's see what they can do about Iran...

Time to open our eyes before the next war starts.

Tim writes:

"I will tell you who does not give a damn about civilians and they are the Islamist. They blow up civilians all over the place and wage war on civilians as their key strategy. Just yesterday they used a truck bomb to kill over 70 worshipers leaving a Mosque in Baghdad. That is who you should focus on."

I will tell YOU who doesn't care about civilians: George W bush. He left enough of them to their deaths in New Orleans, didn't he? But that's another discussion...

Why is everything always an either/or choice with you? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? I would gently suggest to you that our immediate moral responsibility is to get our own house in order before accusing others of atrocities. 70 dead worshippers is indeed a tragedy, but the real trgedy is that the total number of Iraqis killed directly or indirectly as a result of bush's illegal war is a number in the hundreds of thousands, a number that is downplayed by bush and his sychophants to be "only" around 30,000.

What will it take for you to realize that "they" (the Islamists) do their evil in Iraq because "we" (the good, Xian Americans) threw a bomb into a tinderbox? It is absolutely shameful that you toss around words like "nuke them" so cavalierly, and that you impunge the memory of Harry Truman by speculating that he would have picked the nuclear option to address not a war, but what should have been a police action.

Why not own up to the truth - that your beloved Xian president got us into this illegal war all on his own, and that we as a nation are inheriting the wind of his "directed by a higher Father" religious beliefs and the overwhelming influence those religious beliefs have on his policy decisions?

Cowards, all, Tim. Cowards all.

Tim: The people (Americans and British) who attacked a country (Iraq) for absolutely no reason, cannot claim that others have no respect for human life. Our words have been good ... our actions make us criminal (for the record I was opposed to the attack on Iraq from 1002, but unfortunately this is a democracy). And last I checked Bush claimed to be, and is has been praised that he is, Christian!

I do agree about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. They were needed only because we insisted on an unconditional surrender. And for some reason, those who dropped them were not Islamists (Muslim actually)! Go figure.

... and most important, have provisions been made, as much as possible, to shield civilians from being collateral damage...

OK, when we dropped those nuclear bombs on Japan to end that "just" war, tell me how much effort was made to shield civilians. Or how about the massive fire bombing done on many German cities during that "just" war. Sherman wagged war on civilians on his march to Savannah during that "just" war. If anything, we have taken more provisions during this war than in any war in history to protect civilians. Not because Bush is such a great guy or that the Military wants to but because we have more precise weapons and many people watching on their TV sets around the world. Our enemy wants to catch us screwing this up so the can inflame Muslims around the world. For these reason extensive efforts are being taken to not harm civilians and it is unprecedented in the conduct of war.

If taking provision for civilians is your "most important" criterion for a just war, then this is a just war. And all these precautions have, I am sure, cost the lives of US Soldiers and prolonged the conflict. Harry Trueman might have just nuked them and got it over with.

I will tell you who does not give a damn about civilians and they are the Islamist. They blow up civilians all over the place and wage war on civilians as their key strategy. Just yesterday they used a truck bomb to kill over 70 worshipers leaving a Mosque in Baghdad. That is who you should focus on.

TJ: "Good Christian" leaders would be humble. That is what is missing (among other things) in Bush, and many of the religious right-wing.

TJ,

Thanks for clearing that up!

"Surely my good Christian leaders couldn't be telling big lies."-haha!

Andrea, Sorry that's a little confusing. Faith wouldn't have helped Mr Mark see through things, but perhaps faith made it more difficult for some others to see through things.

"Surely my good Christian leaders couldn't be telling big lies."

Mr Mark,

Well said! I couldn't agree more.

TJ,

Faith in what?

Mr Mark wrote: "If I could see through the lies, why couldn't others?"

Faith?

I agree with the Rev Balmer's assessment, and also with his prescription.

We invaded Iraq illegally. We as a country owe Iraq much, and we have the moral obligation to put things right. The discussion on an Iraq withdrawal has, to date, been one of false choices. Rev Balmer offers a third way, and that is welcome.

The majority of Americans stood on the sidelines and cheered this administration off to war in Iraq. The excuse, "if I knew then what I know now," doesn't cut it - there are people around (like me) who sensed that the "proofs" being offered were all lies, none more so than Colin Powell's mendacious performance at the UN. If I could see through the lies, why couldn't others?

It is the height of hypocrisy and cowardice that we are considering leaving Iraq as the mess we created. If we had any guts, we'd accept the fact that we will be there for decades and that we will continue to funnel trillions of dollars into Iraq for years to come. Germany and Japan paid the price for making horrible decisions in launching WWII, and we as a nation should also have the experience at least once of feeling the full impact of doing the wrong thing on an international scale. Reparations would be a good start in this direction.

Bush's Iraq War may well spell the end of our once-great nation. The fact that we are ready as a nation to wash our hands of a disaster of our creation shows the true face of American morality, our vaunted sense of fair play and our increasingly laughable claim of being the greatest nation on this Earth.