Indeed, mission accomplished
Martin Rush, Denver
Published March 31, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Text size 
Five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, let's review all we've accomplished. Four thousand American troops dead, 30,000 wounded, $500 billion spent. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. Four million Iraqi refugees. A civil war with ethnically cleansed neighborhoods in Baghdad patrolled by sectarian militias. Iraqi military and police forces still unable to provide security. A crippled economy with electrical generation and oil production below pre-war levels. A Turkish invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan, which forbids the Iraqi army to enter its territory. A surge in the influence of Iran and the presence of Al-Qaida in Iraq, both of which were nonexistent before the invasion.
Mission accomplished, Mr. Bush.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
March 31, 2008
2:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Mr. Rush. Isn't it getting a little old to keep repeating ad infinitum the talking points from the Daily Kos and Moveon.org? None of it is any more than pure Bush Deragement Syndrome propoganda. There is no substance to anything you say, but you continue to bleat like a wounded sheep(le). Your lies, no matter how often you repeat them are still lies, and have been proven as such over and over again. You are one of the few that still believe what you are being fed from the lefties.
Go vote for Obama's "Change", and whine when you lose again. Slurp your propoganda, and pretend you are "Worldly", "Enlightened" and "Measured". Once again, you will be left in the dust, bitching and moaning because your irrelevance rendered you impotent.
March 31, 2008
6:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rangerjoe1 writes:
The liberal version of fighting a war has always been Rwanda,no american solders were killed, just one million killed, in 100 days.
Clean and simple
March 31, 2008
6:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Martin
Very skilled job in picking only negative things to justify what you want to believe.
If we examine the facts more carefully, the mission in Iraq is a wonderful achievement.
We are bringing freedom to oppressed people, and giving them the opportunity to choose a democratic (sorry for using that word) form of government.
In this hostile part of the world, we need to plant a country that values freedom (and possibly Christianity?). Then maybe these people would stop blowing themselves up.
Amen.
March 31, 2008
7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
The mission accomplished was the overthrow of Saddam. The US, and world, is a better, safer place wihout him.
Democrats take a lot for granted - especially when they're not running things.
March 31, 2008
7:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
goodspkr writes:
Here are some of the other accomplishments.
1. No attacks on the homeland for the past 6.5 years.
2. Military defeat of Al Qaeda with a lost of popularity for Al Qaeda in the Arab world going from the high 70% positive to below 25% positive.
3. A military presence in the most volatile part of the world.
4. 25 million Iraqis free from Saddam Hussein's tyranny.
5. Ending of UN sanctions attributed with killing 50,000 Iraqi children each year.
6. Thousands of terrorists killed or captured.
March 31, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Well, I see where the War-Is-Wonderful-And-Shooting-Peopel-Is-Fun Party hacks, and flacks, are right up there on the "front lines" in the propaganda war, with all the usual "spin doctoring" to fend off the "enemy" of REALITY and FACTS.
With such an amount of "success" as we are told is there, kiddies, why aren't our troops coming home? And since we've managed to do what no other Western Nation has been able to do in over a 1000 years in the Middle East, why is it that the candidate from your party is speaking of the necessity for another 100 years, or so, of OUR AMERICAN presence in the area?
Another suit of "beautiful new clothes" for the Emperor - visible only to those who are truly faithful and righteous belivers, of course? Or?
Must be wonderful up there in the LaLa Land of wherever imagination has you folks residing today.
March 31, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
If anyone wants a real understanding how Bush's War got started in Iraq, see
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/N...
March 31, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
Old_Grouch asked, "why is it that the candidate from your party is speaking of the necessity for another 100 years"
For the same reason we've been in South Korea for over 50 years, Europe for over 60, etc. And we'll probably be there for another 50-60 years. Charles Krauthammer's piece in today's Rocky explains it quite well.
March 31, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
old-pouch
Aren't all you posters glad you got old_pouch to use a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
BWAAAAA, HAAAA, HAAAA, ho, ho, hee, hee........oh, sorry, old_pouct. Your attempt a humor is as pathetic as every other post you've made.
We all realize you're an old fart, who's obviously a lot slow, when it comes to remembering how your St. JFK and LBJ expanded THEIR war to the detriment of over 2.5 million service men and women, as well ass the deaths of over 58,000 US kids, not to mention (but I will) the ultimate demise of 3 - 4 million Vietnamese, and Cambodians (after the US pullout).
I agree, Nixon WAS a crook and deserved exactly what he got, but he did what your "progressive" presidents St. JFK and LBJ refused to do, he got us our of Vietnam.
Now, come back with another of your feeble attempts at……..oh, never mind. You wouldn’t understand it anyway.
March 31, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
OG - We're still in Kuwait 17 YEARS after sending Saddam's henchmen running for the hills in that battle. Yet to date, you haven't complained once.
But this is beside your point. If you'd actually listen to what McCain really said, you'd understand he never used any words supporting your notion that he's OK with being at war in Iraq for another 100 years. This 100% misquote is just another "swift-boat" tactic employed by "scrambling to save face" liberal left.
Now, are there any other misquotes you'd like a refresher course on?
March 31, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
As Hitler said if you are going to tell a lie it may as well be a big lie. The left has taken this to heart and they tell some whoppers.
This whole "Mission Accomplished" thing is a good case in point. What nobody seems to get is that the "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed had NOTHING to do with Bush or the Iraq war.
Whenever a carrier group returns to it's home port after a deployment they have indeed accomplished their mission and they come home flying that banner as just one of many other Naval traditions.
Typical leftist propaganda tactic of never letting the facts get in the way of the big lie. Mission accomplished there.
March 31, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Are you proud to be an American Mr. Rush???? Isn't it marvelous that you can write a letter openly criticizing our country's leader or leaders and not be fearful of retaliation??
I wonder how America has kept these individual freedoms for decade upon decades????
Will America be a free country in the future?? With American Hatemongers on the extreme left and right, tearing this county apart; combined with the ruthless globalists wanting to dictate politics in all countries, I wonder.....will we, as citizens, have ANY gaurantee of the freedoms we now enjoy??
March 31, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Martin, as you can tell from the stream of conservative posters crying foul that you hit on some very good points that can't be stressed enough throughout this campaign.
The troops should have been brought back at "Mission Accomplished". They had completed what they set out to do, find or not find weapons of mass destruction, and done it in gallant fashion. Then Bush did what he said he wouldn't do began "nation building". Why? Oil! They were so close and it was just to irresistable. May have been the plan all along given Bush and Cheney's morals and ideals. Either way thats when he began losing support and as continued to lose support for this war. McCain wants to continue it even though the majority of Americans want out. Proving that he will just be another Bush and why we need to keep telling this story thoughout the campaign.
March 31, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
KW, being there and fighting there are two different things that you intentionally leave out. Both democratic candidates have stated they will pull out but leave some forces behind to protect what little democracy has been established there and to perform black opts missions as needed to control the terrorists.
McCain wants to continue full fighting even though, as was stated in the associated press this Sunday, that the surge is less successful than the adiministration is leading everyone to believe since they have only accomplished half of the bench marks in the alloted timetable.
March 31, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
Just a few of McCain's flip flops but he's your man. Good luck with that.
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain if he were a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
* McCain’s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign’s policy.
* In February 2008, McCain abandoned his opposition to waterboarding.
* In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make it inevitable that the United States “eventually withdraws.” Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he’s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years.
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
March 31, 2008
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Leftside,
"McCain wants to continue full fighting..."
This is a flat out lie made up by the left. The "100 years" comments about McCain come from the following quote. When asked about possibly staying in Iraq for 50 years, McCain replied as follows:
"Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."
McCain was not talking about a continued war, he was clearly speaking about maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, something both Clinton and Obama also say they will do. The assertions from the left about "100 years of war" are dishonest at best.
March 31, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
eli, McCain will continue business as usual in Iraq and possibly increase the troop levels. He has said this. Period. If you don't like it vote for one of the Democrats but don't try to sugar coat what the man as said he will do over there.
March 31, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
NCB,
Talk about the big lie!
"In March 1933 the Reichstag was set afire in circumstances that remain mysterious. The Nazis blamed the Communists and history has blamed the Nazis. This last institution of the Weimar Republic was shut down, and Hitler used this as an excuse to condemn Communists and SOCIALISTS to prison."
http://worldwar2database.com/html/naz...
So, why would Hitler, A Nazi, condemn socialists if he WAS a socialist, according to you??? Do you even TRY to get to the truth before spouting off at the "left"???
You and your type like to listen to people like Limbaugh thinking they are telling you the truth. Instead of doing a little research on your own to verify what they say, you take it as gospel. The "leftists" be damned since they are "liars".
LOOK IT UP!
March 31, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Leftside,
I do expect that McCain will continue business as usual, if by business as usual you mean maintaining a significant presence until the Iraqi military is able to completely take over. This does not change the fact that the "100 years of war" assertions made by the left or your statement that McCain wants to continue "full fighting" are dishonest
March 31, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
belletennis,
I wish I had your blind faith in the good of all things Bush. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for the first 3 years of his presidency. I can't any longer! The mistakes and misrepresentations that I believe were made in this war have seriously impacted our economy and our relations with others in the world. I also hope you realize the damage the man you admire so much has done to your party. The "great uniter" is in reality the "great divider" and he has seriously split the Republican party. I want two strong opposing parties, so I'm not very happy about that
I do find it charming that you think there will ultimately be a good outcome in Iraq. Personally, I hope you are right, but based upon recent history in the region and our many missteps I don't see how it is possible. I'm left to conclude that you are merely the latest in the long string of well-intended, but very naive people who somehow think that everything our country does is always right or we wouldn't be doing it!
I wish you would occasionally come back to rebut. People would love to engage you, but you always post early on and then never return. You could do your arguments more of a service by not just posting comments and then abandoning the field. There has to be more to you than that?
March 31, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
NCB, nice touch, throwing Clinton in with Stalin and Hitler. Lying about whether he had an affair or not is not in the same class as deliberately killing millions of people. Once again conservatives show their obsession with sex, hetero or homo.
Hitler was a fascist. Virtually all political obervers, including conservative observers, say fascism is right-wing. But re-labeling things to keep conservatives pure and innocent is something you do all the time.
March 31, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
Where's the quote from McCain saying "I want to keep engaged in military warfare in Iraq for 100 years" as you far left blob subscribers keep referring to?
It's probably right next to the quote where you claim he called Parsley "his" spiritual advisor.
As for his stand on illegals. I'm glad he flip flopped on that issue. I believe he learned his lesson by listening to the outrage that plan brought from the voters rather than listening to his (ill advised) advisers who recommended it in the first place.
Now lets us take a look at all the bills brought forth by Hillary and Obama where they also flip flopped:
1) Hillary... oh, never mind
2) Obama tried to... Oh yeah, same problem there too
I guess if you've NEVER introduced one piece legislation in your entire career as senator then you can rest assured that at least you won't be called a flip flopper.
Am I Wright?
March 31, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
eli, you need to comprehend what you read in here a little better.
Where did I say he would continue full fighting for 100 years?
If you like the fact that McCain will continue as usual then you are in the minority, with McCain.
March 31, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
19%ers are out today.
March 31, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Going into Iraq was a blunder. Having a deserter from the Texas "Champaign Squadron" stand heroically under a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" was a national disgrace. The rest is simply mass murder.
Using lies to justify starting a war is a crime that has no excuse. Bush deserves to be tried, convicted, and hung for what he has done. That is the only thing that will restore honor to America. Bush's followers and all who lick his boots are getting desperate. They can't find one single hard fact to support their case. That's why you see them getting so upset here.
Observe that not one of them has dared to mention the link I posted. The article shows that Saddam Hussein was practically an employee of the Reagan/Bush administrations. They did everything they could to supply him with weapons. The first Bush's ambassador, April Glaspie, told Saddam Hussein, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Gl...
The first Bush instigated the war by practically handing his idiot subordinate, Saddam Hussein, an engraved invitation to invade Kuwait. The first Bush could be brought to reason. Our allies warned him and he backed off before entering the quagmire, but his idiot son was happy to do it for the oil billionaires.
Thank you Martin Rush for publishing the simple incontrovertible truth about the result.
March 31, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
KW,
Let's see, what bills has Obama introduced?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery
S.114 : A bill to authorize resources for a grant program for local educational agencies to create innovation districts.
S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.
S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. (Remember Walter Reed?)
S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans.
S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil.
S.1885 : A bill to provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.
These are just a few of the 120 bills introduced by Obama. As you can clearly see, they are not "fluff" bills.
So, your point is? If you would like, you can go through them all to see if Obama flip-flopped on anything. But to say he hasn't done anything while in congress is plain ignorant.
March 31, 2008
1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
So, why would Hitler, A Nazi, condemn socialists if he WAS a socialist, according to you??? Do you even TRY to get to the truth before spouting off at the "left"???
Posted by fairness on March 31, 2008 at 11:48 a.m.
Now thats funny!
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" Adolf Hitler
Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will." Adolf Hitler.
Socialists have always been cannibals, so to answer your question, as long as you weren't a Jewish communist you were more than welcome in the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Just another BIG LIE perpetuated by the left.
I have to ask if you even bother to THINK before you make arrogant and completely uninformed comments?
March 31, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
And, KW, here are a few for Clinton:
S.1034 : A bill to create investment opportunities for rural families and access to credit for rural entrepreneurs and microenterprises, to support rural regional investment, and for other purposes. (Sounds like someone promoting free enterprise.)
S.1063 : A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to improve certain death and survivor benefits with respect to members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
S.1409 : A bill to provide and enhance education, housing, and entrepreneur assistance for veterans who serve in the Armed Forces after September 11, 2001, and for other purposes.
S.2222 : A bill to require the International Trade Commission to report on the specific impact of each free trade agreement in force with respect to the United States on a sector-by-sector basis, and for other purposes.
Does this llok like she has "NEVER introduced one piece legislation in [her] entire career as senator"?
March 31, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
NCB:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
"In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end."
Doesn't sound like a socialist to me.
March 31, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Now that there's talk about Nazis. Here's something all Bush devotees are really going to love.
Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the idiot Bush, was a financier of Hitler when he was a director of Union Banking Corporation. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott...
Evidently, treason also runs in the Bush family.
March 31, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
Hey Yankee,
I'm looking to get a Colorado conservative blog going. Interested in writing for it?
http://freedomsland.wordpress.com/
March 31, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
More:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7...
I Introduction
National Socialism, commonly called Nazism, German political movement initiated in 1920 with the organization of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or NSDAP), also called the Nazi Party. The movement culminated in the establishment of the Third Reich, the totalitarian German state led by the dictator Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945.
II Origins and Rise of Nazism
National Socialism was similar in many respects to Italian fascism (see Fascism). The roots of National Socialism, however, were peculiarly German, grounded, for example, in the Prussian tradition of military authoritarianism and expansion; in the German romantic tradition of hostility to rationalism, liberalism, and democracy; in various racist doctrines according to which the Nordic peoples, as so-called pure Aryans, were not only physically superior to other races, but were the carriers of a superior morality and culture; and in certain philosophical traditions that idealized the state or exalted the superior individual and exempted such a person from conventional restraints.
Let me highlight a couple of things:
"The movement culminated in the establishment of the Third Reich, the TOTALITARIAN German state led by the dictator Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945."
"National Socialism was similar in many respects to Italian fascism (see Fascism)."
Again, this is not socialism.
March 31, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry". Karl Marx
Sounds EXACTLY like a Socialist to me.
March 31, 2008
1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
His early enthusiasm for Karl Marx was modified by a mixture of ideas from the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, the revolutionary doctrines of Auguste Blanqui, and the syndicalism of Georges Sorel. In 1910, Mussolini became secretary of the local Socialist party at Forli.... Appointed editor of the official Socialist newspaper Avanti, he moved to Milan, where he established himself as the most forceful of all labor leaders of Italian socialism. He believed that the proletariat should unite "in one formidable fascio (bundle), preparatory to seizing power. Some see this as the start of the Fascist movement.
March 31, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Sorry, Hazardous_T, but we were talking about Nazism, not Marxism. Hitler was against Marxism, equating it to the Jewish people:
"Hitler believed that the Jews were involved with Communists in a joint conspiracy to take over the world. Like Henry Ford, Hitler claimed that 75% of all Communists were Jews. Hitler argued that the combination of Jews and Marxists had already been successful in Russia and now threatened the rest of Europe. He argued that the communist revolution was an act of revenge that attempted to disguise the inferiority of the Jews.
In Mein Kampf Hitler declared that: "The external security of a people in largely determined by the size of its territory. If he won power Hitler promised to occupy Russian land that would provide protection and Lebensraum (living space) for the German people. This action would help to destroy the Jewish/Marxist attempt to control the world: "The Russian Empire in the East is ripe for collapse; and the end of the Jewish domination of Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state."
March 31, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
J2,
You know I'd follow you anywhere.
I'll check it out this evening when I have a few minutes.
March 31, 2008
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Main Entry: com·mu·nism Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\ Function: noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common Date: 1840
1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.
Main Entry: fas·cism Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\ Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces Date: 1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.
I don't expect any of you mindless lefties to understand any of this but I'm sure there are plenty of reasonable people that should be told the truth instead of your "Hitler was a right winger" bovine scatology.
March 31, 2008
2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Hazardous_T,
There you go again linking Hitler (Nazi) with communism and socialism, and fascism with socialism. Did you even read those definitions? Here is the definition of socialism:
so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
See definition 1. This is in no way what was happening in Nazi Germany under Hitler, nor in fascist Italy.
March 31, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Yes, NCB, you've found me out. I am only giving you the evidence in black-and-white so that you will know that everything is opposite what it seems.
Again I am wasting my breath on people who cannot see past their own limited knowledge.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
March 31, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
rightwingnut writes:
I have a question for OG and CB. You both are very well practiced at attacking others; so why don't you tell use what you would do if you were in charge?
March 31, 2008
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
NCB,
If it is your rose-colored light, never.
March 31, 2008
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Yankee, a little surprised that you didn't say "I can't quit you" to JII
March 31, 2008
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Hazardous_T @ 1:36,
He doesn't sound like a socialist in that quote, he sounds like an anti-semite. Henry Ford ran all sorts of magazine articles spouting the same "Jews are Godless money-worshippers trying to take over the world" bilge, but I know of no one who accuses Ford of being a socialist.
Anti-semitism knows no political boundaries.
It has been tragically ironic for the Jews that for centuries in Christian Europe, leaders and governments forbade Jews to own land, to farm on their own, to own businesses, thus forcing many Jews to become either peddlers or money-lenders. Then those same countries accused the Jews of being rootless, having no ties to the land, and being only interested in money. And, no, NCB, the answer is not for Jews to beconme Christian.
I can't help it if Karl Marx was an anti-semite, but his rants on Jews don't say a thing about socialism any more than Henry Ford's rants on Jews say anything about capitalism.
March 31, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
So Hitler hated Jews and wanted to take over Russia, and that proves he wasn't a socialist? Karl Marx hated Jews and wanted Germany to take over Russia too, so I guess that by your logic Marx was a right winger too? Like I said thats bovine scatology. You are pulling peanuts out of a huge cow pie. If you had bothered to read your own post Hitler wanted to "destroy the Jewish/Marxist attempt to control the world" so once again peanuts. Oh and by the way Henry Ford was a democrat. I suppose that was some lame attempt to connect Ford to the Republican Party.
Hitler was by every measure a socialist whether you like it or not.
March 31, 2008
2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
rightwingnut,
"In charge" of what? That kind of vacuous question is totally meaningless? As is most of what comes out by way of excuses for the past nearly 8 years of Bushism.
But, that's to be expected, especially when one reads the man's most vociferous defenders, who think they are able to rewrite history by insisting that their interpretation of it makes it different.
Just like the days of the (un)-Holy Inquisition, when Galileo was condemned - along with the Heliocentric theory of the Universe - and forbidden to write, teach, or speak further about something that the Pope had declared to be "heretical". (And, by the way, something the current Pope has stated was a "perfectly correct" decision, and action, by that same (un)-Holy Inquisition at the time.)
Now, let me ask you a question. Since the pope is "infallible" - i.e., cannot ever - but NEVER(!) - make a mistake on matters of "faith and morals"; and further, since a former Pope declared that the Heliocentric theory of the Universe was "heresy" - i.e., against the Roman (Catholic) Faith - which position has now been called "perfectly correct" by the current "infallible" man squating on the throne in the Vatican, by just what hocusy-pocusy, magicky-wagicky means has the earth become flat, with the sun, moon, planets, stars, galexys, and all other universes revolving around it?
Is that by way of the same wierd and wonderful fantasy and imagination that Nazism has now become "socialist/socialism"? Sounds very much like the same kind of product a batch of Old Dogpatch Kickapoo Joy Juice would come up with to me!
March 31, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
rightwingnut writes:
Thank you OG. You just proved my point. Instead of telling us how you would make the world a better place; you simply attack me, and for some unexplainable reason the Pope, who has nothing to do with this conversation! Thank you for proving to me that you find it easier to attack others rather than adding anything meaningful to the discussion.
March 31, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Hazaerdous T,
Boy, that old Kickapoo Joy Juice you're on must have been a really powerful distillation through an old auto radiator. "Henry Ford was a Democrat", you say.
I would really like to know where you find Marx expressing hatred of Jews as a PEOPLE. He was, of course, anti-capital, and anti-capitalist, CLEARLY making his basic theme the "evils" of that form of economics, and the responsibility of it for everything that he saw to be wrong in the world of his day and age. And, in Europe, as elsewhere - even here in the U.S.A. - many ilitterate, ignorant, and just plain stupid people blamed the Jews for being capitalists in the first place, and "controlling the wealth of the world". But, that's a BIIIIIIIIG LOOOOOOONG STRETCH of what Marx actually wrote, there sonny.
Hitler, on he other hand, was outright anti-Jewish as such. Although he most often wrote of that as being pro-Aryan, which is semantics at best. His racism was virulent, and very directly personal; to Jews as people, not just to their economic position in life.
But, of course, when you're re-writing history, you don't have to bother with little nuisances such as facts. And you don't.
March 31, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
rightwingnut
OG can't do anything but attack everyone he disagrees with and anything religious. It's what he lives for.
How sad. How pathetic. How OG.
March 31, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Here is one more quote from someone who was there.
"The Nazis have not only imitated the Bolshevist tactics of seizing power. They have copied much more. They have imported from Russia the one-party system and the privileged role of this party and its members in public life; the paramount position of the secret police; the organization of affiliated parties abroad which are employed in fighting their domestic governments and in sabotage and espionage, assisted by public funds and the protection of the diplomatic and consular service; the administrative execution and imprisonment of political adversaries; concentration camps; the punishment inflicted on the families of exiles; the methods of propaganda. They have borrowed from the Marxians even such absurdities as the mode of address, party comrade (Parteigenosse), derived from the Marxian comrade (Genosse), and the use of a military terminology for all items of civil and economic life. The question is not in which respects both systems are alike but in which they differ..." Ludwig von Mises 1944.
For those who are unaware of it, Von Mises was an Austrian Jewish intellectual and a remarkably prescient economist. He got out of Vienna just hours ahead of the Gestapo. He did therefore have both every reason and every opportunity to be a close observer of Nazism.
March 31, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
rightwingnut writes:
Jimmy B,
I know,I was hoping however....I am still trying to figure out what the Pope has to do with any of this? Serious break with reality evident.
March 31, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
rightwingnut writes:
I am still waiting Charles B
March 31, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Nice attempt at spin there, fellows. But nothing more than that.
Asking you to clarify what you mean by "in charge" is an "attack on you" is it. Well and good. That qustion in the first place would have gotten an "F" in any elementary logic class. So, now YOU are your questions? Rather interesting idea of existence - if a bit irrational.
You asked a question that made no sense. But, you can't answer a question that actually does.
Just as you cannot even tell the difference. Can you?
There's nothing unique about that kind of thing, sonny. You're not the first to throw out an overbroad generalization - called sometimes a "leading question", to which NO answer other than whatever answer be expected by the questioner can be "correct" - and get caught at it. Indeed, way back in my school days, we were taught the good old, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", bit. And that's just one example of the same kind of thing as "What would you do if you were in charge".
Back at you: "In charge of what"? I, or anyone, may give widely different answers to SPECIFICS. I, or anyone, might do very different things in different areas, situations, offices, associations, expenditures of time, etc., etc. So Forth.
March 31, 2008
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Boy, that old Kickapoo Joy Juice you're on must have been a really powerful distillation through an old auto radiator. "Henry Ford was a Democrat", you say.Posted by Old_Grouch on March 31, 2008 at 3:09 p.m.
Too funny!
Ford became interested in politics and as a successful and powerful business leader, was sometimes a participant in political affairs. In 1915, he funded a trip to Europe, where World War I was raging. He and about 170 others went -- without government support or approval -- to seek peace. The war lasted another three years. After the war Ford ran unsuccessfully for the Senate on the Democratic ticket. He never ran again, but was always outspoken on political subjects.
No wonder the democrat mascot is a jackass.
March 31, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
rightwingnut writes:
OG,
Let me see If I can make this plain for you. INSTEAD OF ATTACKING OTHERS AND ADDING NOTHING POSITIVE TO THE DISCUSSION. ENLIGHTEN US WITH YOUR IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. IS THIS STRAIGHT FORWARD ENOUGH FOR YOU?
March 31, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
HazardousT,
The problem there is, simply, mixing up METHODS/METHODOLOGY with IDEOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY, and insisting that they should be taken as one and the same thing.
History shows that, in METHODS, all dictatorships tend to show great likenesses to each other. The simple reason is one of any dictatorship's need for CONTROL, whether it be control of people or control of objects. The underlying reasons for - or philosophy of - the desired control, however, need not be anywhere congruent with the METHODS used to acquire it, and maintain it over time.
The Gulag and the Concentration Camp are METHODOLOGIES. The end result desired is control. The two IDEOLOGIES setting up either camp are widely disparate; AND, their ideological goals are very different as well.
Simply lumping METHODS and IDEOLOGY all together, and then insisting that this is some kind of "better", or "more perfect", expression is, of course, not new. Nor is it really something that changes the reality of inherent, and often diametrically opposed PHILOSPHIES/IDEOLOGIES into a sort of "melded together" one. The foundation of propaganda is the lie. And, as Goebbels pointed out, the bigger the lie - and the louder it is shouted about, and the longer such shouting about takes place - will often displace the truth, since it is easier to accept the "noise" than it is to analyse the contents.
Hitler and Marx might be likened to opposite ends of the spectrum, or opposite poles on Earth, basically, and throughout their PHILOSOPHY/IDEOLOGY. Marxists (Communists) and Nazis may well have used much the same METHODS in ruling over a Nation; but that does not make one into the other, nor even bring them all that much closer together in fundamentals.
March 31, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
NCB have you ever noticed that OG (sounds like the name of a caveman) always retreats to the same Old Gibberish and name calling when proved wrong?
OG you sure are a funny guy but very badly misinformed. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
March 31, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
NotChasB saith "The Pseudo Christians that perpertrated all the evils against the Jewish people were not true Christians. I think that was a lesson you forgot and I am happy to enlighten you with."
NotChasB, the people who perpetrated the Medieval assaults on Jews considered themselves Christians, the Christian church of the time considered them as such, they are recorded in history as such, and had you lived at that time and called them Pseudo Christians, you'd have suffered a heresy trial, conviction, and agonizing execution. Rather thas say they were false Chritians, why not simply acknowledge that there have been good Christians and bad ones, just as there have been good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc., and bad ones?
If you were to point out some foul deed by a Democratic politician, and I were to say "Oh, that person wasn't a true Democrat", I'd be a hypocrite. Same with Christians who did bad deeds. They're still Christians, just lousy ones.
March 31, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings." Adolf Hitler.
(Quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940)
March 31, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Fair enough, rightwingnut.
I would begin - as I have sort of attempted to begin here - by distinguishing, defining, and clarifying what the goals are. Having done so, I would seek to keep from muddying the waters with nothing more than buzz-words, or talking-points, when expressing both the goals and the oppostion to them.
First, I would seek peace. To arrive at peace, I would seek to understand - and assist others to understand - the differences in cultures, and backgrounds, heritages, and consequent current responses that have led to battle, and can lead that way today as well. I would stop trying to put over the idea that it is some kind of American "mission" to solve internal civil wars elsewhere; and I would seek to involve other nations in attempting to refrain from the kind of "imperialism" that thinks one culture has a "superiority" that entitles it to control another.
I would then turn to the reality of PERCEPTIONS; and seek to understand how and why others PERCEIVE us - or anyone else - as responsible for their own problems. And, I would actually seek to discover IF WE WERE in some way responsible. I would quit the position that "We don't need to care about what others think", that pervades this Administration. And, I would quit the continuous blathering about of the idea that taking a good hard look at our own faults - as others perceive them - is, somehow, "un-American", as seems to be so much the theme of those who refuse to acknowledge reality.
Then, I would work to eliminate all the rhetoric about programs that is nothing more than superficial criticism. And, instead of always and forever holding Party Loyalty above common sense, and the art of the achievable in politics, compromise, I would work as hard as possible to build the kind of coalition that acknowledges that NO PERFECT, ONE SIDED, outcome is always best.
I also would try to find those Statesmen, and women, who could act accordingly in Congress, instead of simply using a Party "litmus test" as to whether or not something should be enacted, or should receive a favorable vote.
I also have a great tendency to look at many things on the basis of, "If it works, don't fix." And that would be applied - as best possible - to both domestic and foreign relations. Also, if it don't work, let's find a way to fix; a way that isn't just another attempt to set up an opposite kind of unworkable mess in order to blame the other Party for what doesn't work now; and will itself, in turn, wind up being blamed for not working in the future.
I am not running for Office, nor am I a politician. But, One thing for sure: I WOULD NOT try to rewrite history; nor would I try to fob everything off on a past Office holder's "bad conduct" in matters NOT THOSE OF HIS GOVERNMENTAL OFFICE.
And, in general, I would work WITH, NOT always AGAINST, even those who are at the furthest opposite end from my own position
March 31, 2008
4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
rightwingnut,
I got cut off by the 3,000 character rule above. But, in the limits I had, I did the best I could.
HazardousT,
Where did you get your Philosophy Degree? You say that I am badly informed - or mis-informed. Where? And in what way? Or do you simply dismiss logic as no longer a foundation for carrying on discussion, debate, and even learning processes?
If so, where did you acquire possession of universal absolutes?
March 31, 2008
4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Don't bother hitting the conservative blog-o-lies above. Why not go directly to http://toopoortovoterepublican.com/ to find out if you're too poor to vote Republican.
Thanks, all you conservative numb-nuts, for letting me know about this really sweet web site. I plan to purchase the mug and fifty bumper stickers. Be careful where you park your gas-guzzler!
March 31, 2008
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Hazardous T,
Thank you for actually presenting something that proves the point we all have been making all along; namely and to wit, that Nazism and Marxism are NOT the same thing.
Marx holds to the ultimate ideology of abolishing private ownership entirely, ending in a "classless society", by way of a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
In your own citation of a quote from Hitler, you have him saying that he doesn't care about private ownership, and let it be as it is. He does say that "we socialize people"; but how does that make him Marxist; since the word "socialize" has many meanings, even in the original German.
For instance, we "socialize" when we get together for a picnic, or a dance, or for community service, or for any other gathering together that involves mutual participation. We "socialize" when we participate in the entire process of elections; and caucus, campaign, and vote. We "socialize" when we attend school, participate in class, by way of discussion or other active presence. We "socialize" at work. We "socialize" in our religious practices.
Marxian concepts here take great issue with the idea of even having some of those activities as part of the human experience in the Marxist form of "socialism". Do Hitler's concepts do the same? Where? When? Under what circumstances? Do the two even acknowledge the same meaning for the word itself?
The challenge is to use logic - and the brain you have - to distinguish terms, and to reflect on their agreement and congruence, or opposition and distinction. Didn't your Philosophy Professors teach this? Mine were Jesuits. And they did!
March 31, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
OK I tire of OG and Hitler, (two jokers from the same socialist deck) besides I still have a life and Capitalism to persue.
I don't blame OG for attempting to distance himself from his fellow traveler, cannibalism is typical of what the left does. Just look at Lenin/Stalin, Hitler/Stalin, Stalin/Trotsky, Clinton/Obama. The pattern is unmistakable.
March 31, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
J2,
I'm interested but have no idea how it works. Where do you begin.
Spencer,
A word to the wise - it would be a good idea for you to tread lightly with the homophobic insults. There are many in the gay community who are not that tolerant any more and you may find yourself more of a crack-up then you intended.
March 31, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
The facts are the West is reaping the seeds sewn with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire...how could the ME be a place peaceful and prosperous for centuries without the West's meddlesome and greedy nature (to control oil)?
In the long run, our efforts in Iraq and the ME as a whole will be demostrated to be foolish and stained in the blood of innocents.
The West made the mordern middle east the firebox it is today, and Bush's blundering policies have only made it worse.
All you yahoo's who believe we are doing the right thing just don;t have a clue how grim day to day life is in Iraq right now.
And when did it become the county's responsiblilty to install democratic regimes?
Good God, if we spent just a fraction of the billions pissed away in Iraq on new energy technologies we could solve this fossil dillemma we are now see today. This dillemma that has only been excacerbated by Bushco and all those who believe America's once great military might is the only way to solve problems.
Bush's solution is at best small minded, lacks knowledge of history and doomed to failure.
Go ahead and blame the left for the a$$y job Bushco has done...it's not like the left hasn;t approved every damn spending bill on this fiasco...it's not like the left are calling the shots on the ground...and suppose if the left was all for this, just what the hell would be different on the ground? Would Sunni's and Shia's be getting along? Would Palestinians be less pissed about having their land taken over by Eminant Domain.."a land without without a people, for a people without a land'? that's got to be one of the biggest crock's of all time.
And Belltennis...thanks for showing that you want to make the world Christian...from the otherway around, you would be ok if Bin Ladin wants to make the world muslim...?
keep your f-ing religion in your mind and at your church...
March 31, 2008
4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Way to go, Rev. Mort Farndu. You tell 'em how it is. Don't let the neocons here get you down.
NonChaseBe, why not drag out the old pathetic lie that Hitler was an atheist? You seem to have forgotten that one among all your other odd mumblings and misspellings. Don't you have a houseful of feral cats to care for?
March 31, 2008
5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"keep your f-ing religion in your mind and at your church..." - Grim Reefer
And keep your liberalism in your mind and at your coffee shops.
March 31, 2008
6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
Yankee,
Good. I need your email so I can add you to the blog as a contributer. From there, you simply create a username and password for the blog.
If you want, you can create a temp email to post here, and then change it once we connect.
March 31, 2008
6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
grim reefer
Intersting name. How much did you smoke today?
March 31, 2008
6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
"...under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, 'National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.'
What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty-point program for the 'National Reich Church' drawn up during the war by Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan...
"The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
"The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800...
"The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
"The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany...'"
"On the altars there must be nothing but 'Mein Kampf' (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
"On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer)
"National Socialist and Christian concepts are incompatible. The Christian Churches build upon the ignorance of men and strive to keep large portions of the people in ignorance because only in this way can the Christian Churches maintain their power. On the other hand, National Socialism is based on scientific foundations. Christianity's immutable principles, which were laid down almost two thousand years ago, have increasingly stiffened into life-alien dogmas. National Socialism, however, if it wants to fulfill its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific researches." Martin Bormann.
"You see, it's been our (the German people) misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" (Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, p. 96, Inside the Third Reich.)
Not athiest perhaps but certainly not Christian.
March 31, 2008
6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
Was there something you wanted to say, Charles B.?
March 31, 2008
7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
LOL. Good, glad to hear it. Look, you made me write LOL!
March 31, 2008
7:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Not even OG knows what he is bleating about. The fact that I don't speak sheep as a second language doesn't make me ignorant.
March 31, 2008
7:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
Yankee doodles:
"The mission accomplished was the overthrow of Saddam. The US, and world, is a better, safer place wihout him.
Democrats take a lot for granted - especially when they're not running things."
The Democrats sure weren't running things in the early '80s when Saddam Hussein was Uncle Sam's best buddy.
March 31, 2008
7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Ironmike,
Saddam was not our best buddy in the early 1980's or any other time. Saddam did offer a counter-balance to the Mullahs in Iran who were perceived to be the greater threat at the time - do you remember when they took over the embassy and held us captive during the Carter administration? That was before Reagan when the Democrats were running things. Of course the Iranians released the American captives the day Reagan took office.
You might then recall that it was Bush Sr. who then chased Saddam out of Kuwait?
Afterward, when the Democrats were running things again in the 90's that was when Al Qaeda was built up its power and Saddam was playing games with the UN weapon inspectors.
Post- 9/11 Saddam posed a greater threat as a terrorist than a benefit as a counter-balance to Iran and so, Bush Jr. took him out once and for all.
Do you see any sort of pattern there Ironman? Things really aren't that complicated provided you have just a rudimentary understanding of the circumstances.
March 31, 2008
7:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
J2,
You tax my web skills beyond their limit: temporary e-mail? Tell you what, I will get with the IT guys tomorrow and see what I can figure out.
And do stop running that stick along the bars of Charles cage. You know how that gets him upset. He'll probably stay in his room all day tomorrow.
March 31, 2008
7:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Hazardous
You're new here. Charles' stupidity keeps him ignorant. That's why he can't acknowledge the difference between the two.
March 31, 2008
7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
Hey Yankee,
Sorry. I should have been clearer. Just go to gmail.com, hotmail.com or yahoo.com and create a new email account. You just have to fill out a phony name, pick a username, and boom, you have a new email address.
I call it temporary because you do not need to keep it. Once I email you and get you set up on the blog, you can change your email on the blog to whatever you want. I just suggested creating a new email so you do not have to post your personal email address on this forum.
No big deal. No rush. And, I like running the stick along Charles' cage. When he gets mad, he gets really mad....
March 31, 2008
8:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
J2,
No way I'm putting up my e-mail here - not with all the trolls lurking. Watch this space tomorrow.
A day in his room will probably do him good.
March 31, 2008
8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Yankee, I was going to point out to chuckles that even though the Republicans retained the White House and the Senate in 1984 democrats with a loss of 16 seats still had control of the House 253/182. I don't recall them bitchin too much about using Saddam as a proxy to fight the ones who took down Carter. Besides isn't it possible that as dear leader of the Socialist Baath Party Saddam was a fellow traveler? That could explain the violent opposition from the left against the Iraq war...
tee hee hee, that oughta rattle OGs cage!
March 31, 2008
9:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
PACE2008 writes:
"No attacks on the homeland for the past 6.5 years." - good point goodspkr
I have to ask though,,, When will the man who was responsible for the last attack that resulted in 2998 innocent people being killed, be tried for that crime?
March 31, 2008
9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Hazardous_T,
Does your mommy know your up this late, and still making a nuisance of yourself pestering the adults from your daddy's computer?
Going down the line of history for the past 50 years or so, we've had a whole parcel of odd "special friends". Daddy Bush and Norriega were the best of pals while Daddy Bush was spookhead. Of course, when Norriega wanted a bigger split of the take on all the coke being run into the country - and sold to finance CIA work - the friendship came to an abrupt end.
And then there was Somoza - and company - down in Nicarauga - pals all through the Eisenhown-Nixon joy ride. Pinochet down in Chile, when the CIA decided we couldn't stand to have an elected President in another country who openly called himself, "socialist" - even though we had been made fools of by Fiden in Cuba for a long time. Oh, and that brings to mind Batista - who was our - and the Mafia's - fair haired boy in Cuba until Fidel.
The Argentine gave us General Peron and his Wife, Eva - though I really don't remember what side WE were supposed to be on when the English got all het up over the Falkland Islands; but it wasn't anyone down there interested in either a Republic or a Democracy, that's for sure. (Bush's silly notion, of bringing "democracy and freedom" to the Middle East, by way of Iraq also comes to mind.)
There is an old saying: Politics makes strange bedfellows. (And you will have to run to your Daddy to get the explanation of that last word, since I don't want to be charged with "child abuse" by giving you ideas you are much too young to either understand or appreciate.)
Well, it is time for good little boys to be in bed. So, go tell your mommy she needs you.
March 31, 2008
9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Hazardous_T,
Oh, yes! Be sure you have your Daddy look for, and drive out that terrible "Red" under the bed, so you can sleep tight now.
March 31, 2008
11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
"I am OG hear me roar!!!" Pardon the slang but; ROTFLMFAO
I gotta say OG, I find you immensely entertaining. Keep up the good work.
April 1, 2008
6:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Hazardous_T,
At the level of High School Freshman, you're doing fairly well. Keep it up; and you might even rise to being Sophomoric one of these days.
After all, every boy needs something to which to aspire; and you have a good start.
Thank you for the compliment. Being entertained is at least part of the exercise of becoming educated; so I'm on the right track with you after all.
April 1, 2008
6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
J2,
I have an account at jjtocsin@gmail.com.
Hazardous
We need specimens like the Grouch around to provide an example of J. Kilpatrick's phrase the "Blame America First Crowd." These are individuals who enjoy the blessings of liberty, which they assume are their due by birth, and have no sense of gratitude for the sacrifices made by their fellow Americans or appreciation of the principles that have made America the most free and prosperous nation ever known.
They got lucky and they think they're good.
April 1, 2008
8:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
Ha, thanks for the advice Charles. I'll consider the "radical" label.
April 1, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
By the way, has anyone seen gmail's new Custom Time feature? Pretty cool stuff.
http://mail.google.com/mail/help/cust...
April 1, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
John II:
I'd like to clairify my last comment about one keeping religion to themselves...i was a little hot under the collar when i wrote that (concerning belltennis's comments at the start of this discussion).
I have no desire to see religion banned, i respect people's need for religion and belief...and while i do believe in God, I personally feel that relgion is MAN's attempt to capitalize on the belief in God, whose soul aim is (soul, get it, ha ha) to control people...does that mean all religion is bad..no..if it works for you, good..i am glad you find peace and contentment...it's not for me to say what is right or wrong regarding one's relgious pratice...none of that is for me however...and, my point is thus, an elected offical should not be using their religion as an excuse or reason to take action...
beltennis's comment that we should endevour to make Iraq a Christian nation is my case in point...
do you think it should be the business of this country's foreign policy to use the Bible as the basis of it's actions abroad? It's been done before, and the results seldom turn out well...
nor do i agree radical islamists should be forcing their religion on Western culture...they are wrong in deeds, for sure, and in words...
holding up one's relgion vs another's pave's the way for excusing barbaric behavoir.
I do apologize about the tone and content of that sentence...In America people are free to discuss their beliefs (within reason), but in me, you wouldn't find such a receptive audience.
April 1, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
OG, when you think you have to resort to name calling to win an argument it is a confession of intellectual impotence. It is kind of fun however to watch you flail about when someone shoots down your spurious ideas. Very entertaining indeed.
April 1, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
Thanks for the clarification, Grim Reefer.
"my point is thus, an elected offical should not be using their religion as an excuse or reason to take action..."
I disagree. The elected official can use whatever excuse he wants to take action. If you elect a very religious Christian, he will most likely make decisions based on his beliefs. If you elect a secular liberal, she is most likely to make decisions based on her beliefs.
"beltennis's comment that we should endevour to make Iraq a Christian nation is my case in point..."
I agree that Iraq should be converted to Christianity. I think their future would be much brighter and peaceful if they abandoned Islam for Christianity.
"holding up one's relgion vs another's pave's the way for excusing barbaric behavoir."
Oh, I do not think that is the rule. You could easily say holding up one's political ideology vs. another's paves the way for excusing barbaric behavior.
April 1, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Hazardous_T applauds bropous, well said.
April 1, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
bropous, I have to disagree on one semantic point. "no oppressed person ever looks to a liberal for his/her freedom." I believe that leftist would be more appropriate. The word liberal seems to have been snuck into the lexicon by the leftists who wish to mask their true socialistic intentions, much like the way democrats are now "blue".
If you think about it our founders were quite liberal for their time and for that matter so was Jesus. Liberalism isn't always a bad thing but leftism is.
April 1, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Johntrythisone writes:
Bropous,
I agree with you totally. I am truly thankful for the job
President Bush has done.
April 1, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Update Iraq:
Now that Petraeus and the troops have reduced Al Qaeda to a shamble in the "Sunni Triangle" operations against the Shia militia's are under way in the south. The Brits had been in control of the area and had followed the pre-surge American policy of keeping troops in their garrisons while the terrorists took over the neigborhoods. The difference with this surge is that it is Iraqi forces, trained by the US, taking the intiative at the intruction of Shia Prime Minister Maliki.
War critics have long told us that it is not possible to prepare Iraqi's to defend their own country. It looks as though it is possible after all.
The outcome of the operation is uncertain as the Iraqi forces are meeting strong resistance. Patriotic Americans will look for an Iraqi victory. The Democrat leadership will go on predicting an American defeat.
Good point on liberalism/leftism. I have never been able to understand how anyone can think of Hillary as being liberal. Reactionary - well, yes - but liberal?
April 1, 2008
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
"War critics have long told us that it is not possible to prepare Iraqi's to defend their own country. It looks as though it is possible after all."
I have to ask why they believe that? Is it because they are Muslim or Arab? Is it because they are too savage or stupid to govern themselves in a rational and orderly manner?
Do I catch a whiff of racism from these oh so self rightous war critics? Or...
Could it possibly be that democrats don't have a problem with authoritarian dictatorships as long as they are "secular", and we upset the apple cart?
April 1, 2008
5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
John II
I couldn't disagree more...make Iraq a Christain nation? Do you get rankled when people think America would be better off as a Muslim Nation?
Did you know before 1914, Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in peace in the Middle East for centuries??
Sure, lets not only force people to live how we think they should (democracy) but let's make them accept another religion while we are at it...yes, let's keep fighting for the rest of our lives...Good God, that you believe that would be the best solution tells me exactly where you are...it's rather arrogant to presume your religion is the right religion...for all you know, you have been duped by Satan...but that's the thing...you don;t know...if you claim to truly know, I'll call you a liar..no one on this Earth truly knows what the deal is...
Belltennis and JohnII:
Does the Bible Trump the U.S. Constitution...or vice versa in your opinion?
April 1, 2008
6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"Do you get rankled when people think America would be better off as a Muslim Nation?"
Of course. What does that have to do with anything?
"Did you know before 1914, Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in peace in the Middle East for centuries??"
Ha, did you know that is total BS. Our first war was against Muslims. "...to the shores of Tripoli..." Sound familiar? The Muslims were kidnapping American sailors. Read the story of Eaton.
"it's rather arrogant to presume your religion is the right religion..."
Why would I take part in a religion if I did not think it was the right one? Is it arrogant? Maybe. So what? That does not make it wrong.
April 1, 2008
9:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Grim
Where do you think the Constitution contradicts the Bible? Or vice versa?
April 2, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
PACE2008 writes:
"Did you know before 1914, Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in peace in the Middle East for centuries??"
Where is the factual data to support this statement?
April 2, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
JohnII:
Hey, you're the one advocating for a Christian nation in Iraq. But, I am glad you admit to your own arrogance.
Let's remake the world in our image, right Bropous? 'now we need to concentrate on removing the govenrment of Iran'.
SO, that is the business of America..let's make Persia a Christian country, too. Let's make the whole world Christian and democratic..let's make everyone like me!!
The shores of Tripoli are in Africa, John II...but why bother with geography? However, i will correct my statement, the ME was relative peaceful in the years (many years) prior to WW1...and these Christian nations of the west created all the problems we see there today.
WOuld you admit that you think that Islam is a barbaric religion, a satanic religion...you seem to be dancing around that without directly saying it...
April 2, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
Ok..my statement is a gross generalization about the relative peace in the ME during the Ottoman Empire...but, it is a fact that the modern middle east, the one we are dealing with today, was by and large a creation of the west.
April 2, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"WOuld you admit that you think that Islam is a barbaric religion, a satanic religion...you seem to be dancing around that without directly saying it..."
Yes, it is barbaric. All you had to do was ask.
"SO, that is the business of America..let's make Persia a Christian country, too."
That is my own personal feeling. It is not something America is currently doing.
You keep looking for something to be shocked about. But, I do not think you really believe Muslims are so peaceful and that Christians are so bad. If you had to live in Muslim America or Christian America (you have to choose one or the other), which would you choose?
April 2, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
I still enjoy secular America...thanks for asking.
April 2, 2008
6:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
Nice dodge, Grim Reefer.
April 2, 2008
7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Jesus was a carpenter and Mohammad was a conquerer. If nothing else one was a builder and one was a destroyer. One said speak my words and move on, the other said if they won't listen cut off their ears. And given the secular choice Marx said kill God so that we can worship the state.
April 2, 2008
7:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
Exactly, Haz T. That is exactly why Grim Reefer dodged the question. Deep down inside, he knows Islam is a barbaric religion. He just prefers to let the braver, less politically correct, conservatives to say what he does not have the guts to say himself.
April 2, 2008
8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
John_II, I have to tell you, knowing what I know about history it frightens me to think that thanks to the new and "progressive" democrat party the good old USA is heading towards mid 20th century Europian socialism. I was once called a Nazi for expressing a conservative viewpoint and I soon discovered that the Nazi party was very socialistic and sounded remarkably like our current democrats. That is the basis for my quoting such contemptable creatures as Hitler and Marx. I have an answer to every insult from the intellectualy impotent leftists confirming my theory. From capitalism to religion its like the episode of South Park where no matter what plan Captain Chaos came up with to take over the world the Simpsons did it. All of the progressive ideas from the dems, the Nazis did it.
April 3, 2008
12:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
To clarify the Hitler/Marx connection they were both influenced by Friedrich Hegel and shared many political and philosophical views despite Hitler's disdain for Jewish Marxists.