For the next 50 years ...

[Jason Tate]

I found this letter to those in service to be something that should be shared. Written by Roger Morris, who served on the senior staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Johnson and Nixon until resigning over the invasion of Cambodia. An award-winning investigative journalist and historian, he is the author of several books, including "Richard Milhous Nixon: The Rise of an American Politician." He is currently completing a history of U.S. policy and covert intervention in Southwest Asia.

Dear Trustees:

I am respectfully addressing you by your proper if little-used title. The women and men of our diplomatic corps and intelligence community are genuine trustees. With intellect and sensibility, character and courage, you represent America to the world. Equally important, you show the world to America. You hold in trust our role and reputation among nations, and ultimately our fate. Yours is the gravest, noblest responsibility. Never has the conscience you personify been more important.

A friend asked Secretary of State Dean Acheson how he felt when as a young official in the Treasury Department in the 1930s, he resigned rather than continue to work for a controversial fiscal policy he thought disastrous -- an act that seemed at the time to end the public service he cherished. "Oh, I had no choice," he answered. "It was a matter of national interest as well as personal honor. I might have gotten away with shirking one, but never both." As the tragedy of American foreign policy unfolded so graphically over the past months, I thought often of Acheson's words and of your challenge as public servants. No generation of foreign affairs professionals, including my own in the torment of the Vietnam War, has faced such anguishing realities or such a momentous choice.

I need not dwell on the obvious about foreign policy under President Bush -- and on what you on the inside, whatever your politics, know to be even worse than imagined by outsiders. The senior among you have seen the disgrace firsthand. In the corridor murmur by which a bureaucracy tells its secrets to itself, all of you have heard the stories.

You know how recklessly a cabal of political appointees and ideological zealots, led by the exceptionally powerful and furtively doctrinaire Vice President Cheney, corrupted intelligence and usurped policy on Iraq and other issues. You know the bitter departmenta disputes in which a deeply politicized, parochial Pentagon overpowered or simply ignored any opposition in the State Department or the CIA, rushing us to unilateral aggressive war in Iraq and chaotic, fateful occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

You know well what a willfully uninformed and heedless president you serve in Bush, how chilling are the tales of his ignorance and sectarian fervor, lethal opposites of the erudition and open-mindedness you embody in the arts of diplomacy and intelligence. Some of you know how woefully his national security advisor fails her vital duty to manage some order among Washington's thrashing interests, and so to protect her president, and the country, from calamity. You know specifics. Many of you are aware, for instance, that the torture at Abu Ghraib was an issue up and down not only the Pentagon but also State, the CIA and the National Security Council staff for nearly a year before the scandalous photos finally leaked.

As you have seen in years of service, every presidency has its arrogance, infighting and blunders in foreign relations. As most of you recognize, too, the Bush administration is like no other. You serve the worst foreign policy regime by far in the history of the republic. The havoc you feel inside government has inflicted unprecedented damage on national interests and security. As never before since the United States stepped onto the world stage, we have flouted treaties and alliances, alienated friends, multiplied enemies, lost respect and credibility on every continent. Yousee this every day. And again, whatever your politics, those of you who have served other presidents know this is an unparalleled bipartisan disaster. In its militant hubris and folly, the Bush administration has undone the statesmanship of every government before it, and broken faith with every presidency, Democratic and Republican (even that of Bush I), over the past half century.

In Afghanistan, where we once held the promise of a new ideal, we have resumed our old alliance with warlords and drug dealers, waging punitive expeditions and propping up puppets in yet another seamy chapter of the "Great Game," presuming to conquer the unconquerable. In Iraq -- as every cable surely screams at you -- we are living a foreign policy nightmare, locked in a cycle of violence and seething, spreading hatred continued at incalculable cost, escaped only with hazardous humiliation abroad and bitter divisions at home. Debacle is complete.

Beyond your discreetly predigested press summaries atthe office, words once unthinkable in describing your domain, words once applied only to the most alien and deplored phenomena, have become routine, not just at the radical fringe but across the spectrum of public dialogue: "American empire," "American gulag." What must you think? Having read so many of your cables and memorandums as a Foreign Service officer and then on the NSC staff, and so many more later as a historian, I cannot help wondering how you would be reporting on Washington now if you were posted in the U.S. capital as a diplomat or intelligence agent for another nation. What would the many astute observers and analysts among you say of the Bush regime, of its toll or of the courage and independence of the career officialdom that does its bidding?

"Let me begin by stating the obvious," Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said at the Abu Ghraib hearing the other day. "For the next 50 years in the Islamic world and many other parts of the world, the image of the United States will be that of an American dragging a prostrate naked Iraqi across the floor on a leash." The senator was talking about you and your future. Amid the Bush wreckage worldwide, much of the ruin is deeply yours.

It is your dedicated work that has been violated -- the flouted treaties you devotedly drew and negotiated, the estranged allies you patiently cultivated, the now thronging enemies you worked so hard to win over. You know what will happen. Sooner or later, the neoconservative cabal will go back to its incestuous think tanks and sinecures, the vice president to his lavish Halliburton retirement, Bush to his Crawford, Texas, ranch -- and you will be left in the contemptuous chancelleries and back alleys, thestiflingly guarded compounds and fear-clammy, pulse- racing convoys, to clean up the mess for generations to come.

You know that showcase resignations at the top -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or flag officers fingered for Abu Ghraib -- change nothing, are only part of the charade. It is the same with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who may have been your lone relative champion in this perverse company, but who remains the political general he always was, never honoring your loss by giving up his office when he might have stemmed the descent.

No, it is you whose voices are so important now. You alone stand above ambition and partisanship. This administration no longer deserves your allegiance or participation. America deserves the leadership and example, the decisive revelation, of your resignations.

Your resignations alone would speak to America the truth that beyond any politics, this Bush regime is intolerable -- and to an increasingly cynical world the truth that there are still Americans who uphold with their lives and honor the highest principles of our foreign policy.

Thirty-four years ago this spring, I faced your choice in resigning from the National Security Council over the invasion of Cambodia. I had been involved in fruitful secret talks between Henry Kissinger and the North Vietnamese in 1969-1970, and knew at least something of how much the invasion would shatter the chance for peace and prolong the war -- though I could never have guessed that thousands of American names would be added to that long black wall in Washington or that holocaust would follow in Cambodia. Leaving was an agony. I was only beginning a career dreamed of since boyhood. But I have never regretted my decision. Nor do I think it any distinction. My friends and I used to remark that the Nixon administration was so unprincipled it took nothing special to resign. It is a mark of the current tragedy that bycomparison with the Bush regime, Nixon and Kissinger seem to many model statesmen.

As you consider your choice now, beware the old rationalizations for staying -- the arguments for preserving influence or that your resignation will not matter. Your effectiveness will be no more, your subservience no less, under the iron grip of the cabal, especially as the policy disaster and public siege mount. And your act now, no matter your ranks or numbers, will embolden others, hearten those who remain and proclaim your truths to the country and world.

I know from my own experience, of course, that I am not asking all of you to hurl your dissent from the safe seats of pensioners. I know well this is one of the most personal of sacrifices, for you and your families. You are not alone. Three ranking Foreign Service
officers -- Mary Wright, John Brady Kiesling and John Brown -- resigned in protest of the Iraq war last spring. Like them, you should join the great debate that America must now have.

Unless and until you do, however, please be under no illusion: Every cable you write to or from the field, every letter you compose for Congress or the public, every memo you draft or clear, every budget you number, every meeting you attend, every testimony you give extends your share of the common disaster.

The America that you sought to represent in choosing your career, the America that once led the community of nations not by brazen power but by the strength of its universal principles, has never needed you more. Thoseof us who know you best, who have shared your work and world, know you will not let us down. You are, after all, the trustees.

Respectfully,

Roger Morris

[Thomas Sway]

wow. Former senior staff member of the NSC comparing Bush to Nixon. That should definitely hit home for some who aren't sure what their opinion is on Bush and his presidency.

[theboohi]

yeah, wow. very well put.

"You serve the worst foreign policy regime by far in the history of the republic." i couldnt agree more.

everybody remember to vote this november!

[Just_Insane]

also check the letter at propagandhis website out: www.propagandhi.com

[alphanix]

Bush is nothing like Nixon.

[aesopsphere]

out of the 50 or so countrys supporting our actions in iraq a couple socialist countrys like russia, and france who had billions of dollars in contracts with a sadistic rapist dictator are against us. People should look at all the countrys with us. It outnumbers the afainst. I wouldn't call the forign policy a joke.

gas prices are 2.20 here what the fuck? I thought we went to war to get more oil?

I consider myself a moderate demicrat but, this media spin anyone but, bush shit is fucking, we as chuck d would say Whack.

Lets get nixon back in office in 2008 eh?

[slim reaper]

Bush is nothing like Nixon.

yeah, you're right, when nixon was caught lying and cheating, he was forced to resign. people were so scared that iraqis were going to going to swim over here with imaginary weapons of mass destruction on their backs that no one had the courage to stand up to bush when he started deceiving the american public.

[Jason Tate]

out of the 50 or so countrys supporting our actions in iraq a couple socialist countrys like russia, and france who had billions of dollars in contracts with a sadistic rapist dictator are against us. People should look at all the countrys with us. It outnumbers the afainst. I wouldn't call the forign policy a joke.

gas prices are 2.20 here what the fuck? I thought we went to war to get more oil?

I consider myself a moderate demicrat but, this media spin anyone but, bush shit is fucking, we as chuck d would say Whack.

Lets get nixon back in office in 2008 eh?

I would be curious to see what countries are right now, at this point in time, supporting us (and not just the political talking heads sucking off America's tit, but the actual people of the country (we do promote democracy) that support us, in the majority - my conjecture is that the numbers are far smaller than 51%). Because everything I have found online, and seen printed, is in direct condradiction to what you just said. Combine that with someone whose job was pretty much to analyse foreign policy comes out and says our F.P is in shambles, and makes some valid reasons as to why, and I lean towards belieiving him.

[truerockstar]

I would be curious to see what countries are right now, at this point in time, supporting us (and not just the political talking heads sucking off America's tit, but the actual people of the country (we do promote democracy) that support us, in the majority - my conjecture is that the numbers are far smaller than 51%). Because everything I have found online, and seen printed, is in direct condradiction to what you just said. Combine that with someone whose job was pretty much to analyse foreign policy comes out and says our F.P is in shambles, and makes some valid reasons as to why, and I lean towards belieiving him.

hmmm, all you've seen and read? wonder if all that liberal propaganda ur reading is tipping the scale? I'm sure if you went search for conservative sites and the like, a different picture would be painted. All about the sources ur looking at.

[MistaChang]

Bush is nothing like Nixon.

...Did you read a single word of this letter???

I can use four words to give a miniscule idea of how they are alike.

Nixon Vietnam Bush Iraq.

But this isn't even the point, it's not like the purpose of this letter was to compare and contrast Bush and Nixon in as many ways as possible, it was, among other things, relating what Morris witnessed as a former senior staff member of the NSC during Vietnam to today and urging all those involved somehow in Bush's plans/administration to resign for they are contributing to the decay of our nation.

[Jason Tate]

hmmm, all you've seen and read? wonder if all that liberal propaganda ur reading is tipping the scale? I'm sure if you went search for conservative sites and the like, a different picture would be painted. All about the sources ur looking at.
That's why I asked for sources, and I will ask you as well - do you have any for my browsing? I have been outside of our country, my best friend is a Marine, my girlfriend's parents are British, I have seen first hand what other parts of the world see the United States as - and I think it would be incredably short sighted, and narrow minded to actually believe that we are looked upon fondly by the majority of the population of the rest of the world. Don't forget that our President is the most protested man in the HISTORY of the entire world. I am simply asking for any evidence that contradicts that we are looked upon in an unsavory light by the majority of the rest of the world.

[UndefinedBoy]

hmmm, all you've seen and read? wonder if all that liberal propaganda ur reading is tipping the scale? I'm sure if you went search for conservative sites and the like, a different picture would be painted. All about the sources ur looking at.

Funny that whenever there's a source that doesn't help prove your point, it's "liberal propaganda."

[foreverfallen]

Though this is a well written letter and all, what he's asking for won't happen. What needs to happen is people show how they feel by voting against him in this upcoming election. He is most certainly a foreign policy disaster, but we've had others (JFK, Nixon)...make sure to vote, no matter for whom.

[Thomas Sway]

Don't forget that our President is the most protested man in the HISTORY of the entire world.

I don't tend to dissagree with you that often Jason, but this...is a bit too far man. Statements like this are going to make people take the other stuff you say a little bit less seriously. What about people like Hitler or Stalin who had millions upon millions of people starve and die in their hands? And that's just in the past 60 years.

I definitely agree that Bush is definitely probably the most protested man in the world currently - but definitely not in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the world.

[21andInvincible]

Democrats will run this country to the ground and will burn it in hell. When Bush came into office he had the hard job of cleaning up all the shit the democrats and Clinton did. You ppl say bush lied to us about the weapons...well tell me this, what was that serine gas bomb in iraq? your liberal news sources fuckin down played it saying it was a "small amount" or "it was from before desert storm when the truth is thats just a bunch of bullshit.They found bombs, theyll find more. They will do anything to get republicans out of office, its sick. You ppl think the conservatives are being brainwashed or w/e...wake up you idiots!!!! your the stupid ones!!! If democrats come into office again our country will become pussy's just like the french...if thats what u want then by all means vote the way you vote. Go ahead, vote for the party that supports killing babies. Go ahead, vote for the party that wont let us use oil in alaska because of an "endangered animal" and they think its better to import oil and then the tankers crash and pollute the ocean (hello thats why gas is so high). Vote for kerry who is a liar, hes got a history of it and dont deny it. Oh ya, why hasnt his ratings gone up??? Vote for the party who cant support our troops or nation and are just too busy criticizing our president and what is right but they dont want to admitt it and are just being wimps. You ppl made up the shit about us goin to iraq for oil and now ur trying to make it seem bush said it himself. Its sick, your sick.

Go ahead say im "ignorant" or "incorrect" cause i know you will. Its what you do cause u always have to make things look good for your beliefs. I dont care what you say cause i know the truth and thats fine. Criticize me all you want and i bet youll take pleasure in it cause thats what you do....

[Thomas Sway]

JFK

JFK's foreign policies go no where near as bad as Bush. Cuban Missle Crisis? I mean..the guy basically saved the planet.

[billcom6]

tate always mentions about how big the anti war protest were before going into iraq and it still boggles my mind, even though it wasnt their purpose, all those anti war protestors were basically protesting to keep saddam hussein (one of the worst dictators the world has ever known) in power, like i said im not saying they wanted that, but thats basically what they were doing


and anyone who compares vietname to iraq really does not have a good grasp on history, not to mention that the war in iraq is over and was one of the most effective military campaigns in the history of world (the actual war, not the aftermath) 50,000 troops died in vietnam without victory, 700 troops have died in iraq with victory already being achieved, they are really not as easily comparable as some make it out to be


and tate how come you never mention any of the good things the US is doing for/in iraq? like the iraqi baby brought to ohio for live saving surgery? or how americans gave free prosthetic limbs to people who saddam had their arms cut off? im sure your readers would like to see something positive once in awhile, the world isnt as bad as it may seem

[Thomas Sway]

and anyone who compares vietname to iraq really does not have a good grasp on history, not to mention that the war in iraq is over and was one of the most effective military campaigns in the history of world (the actual war, not the aftermath) 50,000 troops died in vietnam without victory, 700 troops have died in iraq with victory already being achieved, they are really not as easily comparable as some make it out to be

The duration or death count of a war doesn't change whether or not it is comparable as far as the foreign policies involved are concerned - which is the main question.


and tate how come you never mention any of the good things the US is doing for/in iraq? like the iraqi baby brought to ohio for live saving surgery? or how americans gave free prosthetic limbs to people who saddam had their arms cut off? im sure your readers would like to see something positive once in awhile, the world isnt as bad as it may seem

This I do agree with. Definitely. The only way any of us will ever be able to develop strong rational opinions is if we get all the information. I like hearing things like this. It's a nice reminder that while so much bad is happening, there is still good out there as well - even if not as much.

[Jason Tate]

I don't tend to dissagree with you that often Jason, but this...is a bit too far man. Statements like this are going to make people take the other stuff you say a little bit less seriously. What about people like Hitler or Stalin who had millions upon millions of people starve and die in their hands? And that's just in the past 60 years.

I definitely agree that Bush is definitely probably the most protested man in the world currently - but definitely not in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the world.
This is not a false statement, in fact it has been proven, time and time again. Do a simple search of google, and it will show you the numbers of people that took to the streets last year for the single biggest protest in the history of the world:

"The most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind."

[Thomas Sway]

This is not a false statement, in fact it has been proven, time and time again. Do a simple search of google, and it will show you the numbers of people that took to the streets last year for the single biggest protest in the history of the world:

"The most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind."

oh that. One single protest. I thought you were implying that out of everyone in the history of the world he was he most hated in general - not just in one event.

Nevermind then.

[Jason Tate]

Democrats will run this country to the ground and will burn it in hell. When Bush came into office he had the hard job of cleaning up all the shit the democrats and Clinton did. You ppl say bush lied to us about the weapons...well tell me this, what was that serine gas bomb in iraq? your liberal news sources fuckin down played it saying it was a "small amount" or "it was from before desert storm when the truth is thats just a bunch of bullshit.They found bombs, theyll find more. They will do anything to get republicans out of office, its sick. You ppl think the conservatives are being brainwashed or w/e...wake up you idiots!!!! your the stupid ones!!! If democrats come into office again our country will become pussy's just like the french...if thats what u want then by all means vote the way you vote. Go ahead, vote for the party that supports killing babies. Go ahead, vote for the party that wont let us use oil in alaska because of an "endangered animal" and they think its better to import oil and then the tankers crash and pollute the ocean (hello thats why gas is so high). Vote for kerry who is a liar, hes got a history of it and dont deny it. Oh ya, why hasnt his ratings gone up??? Vote for the party who cant support our troops or nation and are just too busy criticizing our president and what is right but they dont want to admitt it and are just being wimps. You ppl made up the shit about us goin to iraq for oil and now ur trying to make it seem bush said it himself. Its sick, your sick.

Go ahead say im "ignorant" or "incorrect" cause i know you will. Its what you do cause u always have to make things look good for your beliefs. I dont care what you say cause i know the truth and thats fine. Criticize me all you want and i bet youll take pleasure in it cause thats what you do....

You make this too easy. Really, come on now. When you use a statement that Bush had to "clean up" the mess of Clinton, you just make yourself look like a fool. According to many, it's been stated that the period when Clinton in office was one of the most peacefull and prosperous our nation has ever seen. His first day in office, George Bush began to reverse many of the economic, social, and international accomplishments of the Clinton years, dragging the government in small but constant increments to the right. It was immediately clear that he preferred corporations and their profits to the well being of the environment, and within months we found that he placed little value on women's rights, our hard-won respect in the world, or those unlucky enough to have been born poor. Eventually, we saw that he would consistently choose war over peace, that he was incapable of telling the complete truth, and that he had no skill whatever in managing our economy.

Do you know anything about Sarin? Do you know how it is used, how it becomes effective, or anything? Obviously not ... You consider this a WMD "find"? Has the bar been lowered this far in sheer neocon desperation? Saddam had an "active chemical and biological weapons program" - or so they told us he did and the best we can find is a 14 year old shell? Sarin? You mean the chemical that no one uses cause there is an antidote? Wait, you mean we are talking about 30-year old Sarin that no one really uses cause everyone already has the antidote? Wait, you mean traces so small they were not even full GRAMS of this stuff?

That's it. That's all we found?

You know, the Germans didn't even use Sarin in WWII cause everyone had the antidote BACK THEN.

The situation in Iraq is not a game where if any WMD whatsoever are found then somehow the invasion is validated. Rather, the presence of WMD in Iraq only matters insofar as these weapons posed a direct and serious threat to the USA. Unless we find ICBM's or suitcase nukes I see no plausible scenario under which Saddam's effete cache of CBW's would pose a threat to the USA. As such, the WMD rationale remains dubious at best.

My favorite quote of yours is: your the stupid ones!!!

Really .. we're the stupid ones? Wanna check your grammar before insulting our intellegence please. The igonorance that is spewing forth from your post is absurd. You have done no research, and know nothing at all on any of the topics you bring forth: abortion, alaska, gas prices, Kerry's stances, etc. I could spend the rest of the night arguing each and every one of the things you said and showing how crazy you are, but fortunately, your own words do that for me. I think more Bush supporters will be ashamed to support the same party you do after reading your post.

[Jason Tate]

oh that. One single protest. I thought you were implying that out of everyone in the history of the world he was he most hated in general - not just in one event.

Nevermind then.
Yah, sorry, I should have been more clear.

[CROMagnon]

Wow. Powerful rhetoric. Really moving. What he's asking for is a great sacrifice, and I'd like to see if anyone takes him up on it, especially since he is making the case that this is not a partisan issue, but one of honor.
Also, did anybody see today's Boondocks (http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks) ? It is on topic with the title of this post. It has to do with the whole "next 50 years" thing, and it's portrayal in the media. Just wanted to add something to the pot...

[Thomas Sway]

Yah, sorry, I should have been more clear.

it's cool.

[truerockstar]

That's why I asked for sources, and I will ask you as well - do you have any for my browsing? I have been outside of our country, my best friend is a Marine, my girlfriend's parents are British, I have seen first hand what other parts of the world see the United States as - and I think it would be incredably short sighted, and narrow minded to actually believe that we are looked upon fondly by the majority of the population of the rest of the world. Don't forget that our President is the most protested man in the HISTORY of the entire world. I am simply asking for any evidence that contradicts that we are looked upon in an unsavory light by the majority of the rest of the world.

Watch Fox News, that's pretty damn conservative. Listen to 770 AM, that's pretty conservative. I'm not saying these are the best sources in the world, but I was only pointing out alot of what you post come from liberal sources. The reason I said liberal propaganda was because from time to time, you have posted sites that are exactly that. That's not to say there isn't conservative propaganda.

As for ur "qualifications", that has nothing to do with anything. Your girlfriends parents are British? My parents are Italian, does that mean I know what's really going on in the world? You've been out of the country? Great, so have I, alot of people don't have that opportunity, but that doesn't make me the expert on the general feelings of the world. Your friends a marine, tell him thank you, but are you? I'm not trying to ripping you apart, but i'm just saying how does this make you more valid?

As for Bush being the most protested man ever is kinda unfair to say when put out of context. I'm sure there are PLENTY of leaders that would have been protested FAR more if they had the freedom to protest and not get killed.

[Jason Tate]

tate always mentions about how big the anti war protest were before going into iraq and it still boggles my mind, even though it wasnt their purpose, all those anti war protestors were basically protesting to keep saddam hussein (one of the worst dictators the world has ever known) in power, like i said im not saying they wanted that, but thats basically what they were doing


and anyone who compares vietname to iraq really does not have a good grasp on history, not to mention that the war in iraq is over and was one of the most effective military campaigns in the history of world (the actual war, not the aftermath) 50,000 troops died in vietnam without victory, 700 troops have died in iraq with victory already being achieved, they are really not as easily comparable as some make it out to be


and tate how come you never mention any of the good things the US is doing for/in iraq? like the iraqi baby brought to ohio for live saving surgery? or how americans gave free prosthetic limbs to people who saddam had their arms cut off? im sure your readers would like to see something positive once in awhile, the world isnt as bad as it may seem

Please show me how the war in Iraq is over. I seem to have an awkward take on the situation and don't see war as being over until our boys are home, and no longer dying for men in suits. Call me crazy. The problem is much like Vietnam, (where, going by sheer kill ratio - we actually won that war), where the people we are attacking have no place to go, we cannot defeat an enemy in a land where they are stuck - unless, you win the hearts and minds of the country (obviously, we're not doing that very well).

In 1963, well before the American public generally understood where Vietnam was, a young Army captain led a South Vietnamese unit through the A Shau Valley to systematically burn villages to the ground. This was to deprive the so-called Vietcong of any base of support, and was called "draining the sea," a reference to Mao's dictum that the guerrilla is the fish and the population is the sea.

That captain would later write, "I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male. If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served... was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong."

Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the MAMs are back.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, with help from a Marine moron named Mattis, has resurrected the MAM to justify coordinated air-land attacks against weddings.

There is an unofficial excuse making the rounds that this was a mistake, that war planes targeted the wedding because this "alien culture" fires weapons into the air during celebrations. This comports well with the notion that being sodomized and sexually humiliated and beaten to death are "particularly offensive to Arabs," as if Americans, for example, would equate this treatment to root canal work--unpleasant but tolerable.

If it were an error from the air, how in the hell did a ground force follow through for the air attack? I can tell you how. There was no error. These planes were not randomly cruising the Iraqi skies at 3 AM, and suddenly responding to ground fire. And ground troops don't suddenly show up at the same place. Combined air-ground operations require detailed planning and coordination, which means this attack was planned in advance. I don't know what really happened that killed 45 people at Makr al-Deeb, but I can assure readers that this premeditation is part of it.

The official line, adopted as the Abu Ghraib scandal metastasizes into a political crisis for the Bush administration, is that there was no error at all, and that there was no wedding. They were combatants, pure and simple, and goddamit we are not going to apologize to anyone for it. Foreign fighters every one of them, and that whole fucking village is just a pack of rag-headed liars.

"How many people go into the middle of the desert to hold a wedding eighty miles from the nearest civilization," scoffed Major General James Mattis of the 1st Marines. "There were more than two dozen MILITARY-AGED MALES

Second, the protests were not supporting Saddam, I have posted this a million times, but I will do so again:

As for the removal of dictators: dictatorship exists as an idea, that a group of people can seize power and become wealthy, while ruling everyone else. The reason the "War on Terror" scares me is that it is a war on an abstract idea; an enemy that cannot be defined, has no physical form, and cannot be defeated through force.

Attempting to destroy dictatorships by showing that military might can get you whatever you want is not a good tactic. Neither is attempting to destroy terror by inflicting it. Ideas can only be defeated by ideas. It is impossible to defeat an idea when you use it as a weapon. The only way to remove dictatorships is through tolerance and education.

(I am not naive enough to believe that force should never be used, there are times when wars must be fought in order to secure the future of peaceful ideals - this is not one of them.)

- North Korea has supported and performed terrorist acts for decades.
- The majority of the North Korean populace is living in poverty, due to the corrupt government.
- North Korea is run by a brutal dictator.
- North Korea has made clear its hostility towards the US
- North Korea has real, actual WMDS.

Please tell me why you believe that Iraq was a more valid target, or a bigger threat, than North Korea.

Saddam did indeed give money to the families of Palestinian terrorists, but that's the only terror connection, of the many that have been put forth, that has actually panned out. Unfortunately, Saddam's funding of terrorism places him lower than Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia as far as supporting terror. Why is it that many of these countries are our "friends", and we only have troops in Afghanistan? Where is bin Laden?

(Sure am glad I started saving all my rants in text files, it makes these things so much easier to type ..)

As for other reasons against war (and the reason many were REALLY protesting), let's turn to Howard Zinn:

"The Case Against War on Iraq
by Howard Zinn

THE BUSH administration's plan for preemptive war against Iraq so flagrantly violates both international law and common morality that we need a real national debate.

The discussion should begin with the recognition that an attack on Iraq would constitute an attack on the Charter of the United Nations, since the United States would then be in violation of several provisions, beginning with Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state... ''

But let us suppose that international law should not stand in the way when extraordinary circumstances demand immediate violent action. Such circumstances would exist if there were, in the language of our own Supreme Court, a ''clear and present danger'' represented by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

There are facts and there are conjectures about Iraq. The facts: This regime is unquestionably tyrannical; it invaded a neighboring country 12 years ago; it used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels 15 years ago. The conjectures: Iraq may have biological and chemical weapons today. It may possibly be on the way to developing one nuclear weapon.

But none of these facts or conjectures, even if true, make Iraq a clear and present danger. The fact that Iraq is a tyranny would not, in itself, constitute grounds for preemptive war. There are many tyrannies in the world, some kept in power by the United States. Saudi Arabia is only one example. That Iraq has cruelly attacked its Kurdish minority can hardly be a justification for war. After all, the United States remained silent, and indeed was a supporter of the Iraqi regime, when it committed that act. Turkey killed thousands of its Kurds, using US weapons.

Furthermore, other nations which killed hundreds of thousands of their own people (Indonesia, Guatemala) not only were not threatened with war, but received weapons from the United States.

Iraq's history of invading Kuwait is matched by other countries, among them the United States, which has invaded Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, and Panama. True, Iraq may possess, may be developing ''weapons of mass destruction.'' But surely the possession of such weapons, if not used, does not constitute a clear and present danger justifying war.

Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and have come close to using them. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to millions of people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia?

There is the issue of weapons inspection. Iraq insists on certain conditions before it will allow inspections to resume. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year that ''inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else's terms.'' One might ask if the United States would ever allow its biological, chemical, and nuclear facilities to be inspected, under any terms. Is there one moral standard for Iraq and another for the United States?

Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. Why would that event change the situation? There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Is it possible that the Bush administration is using the fear created by Sept. 11 to build support for a war on Iraq that otherwise has no legitimate justification?

The talk of war has raised the question of American casualties, and rightly so. Are the lives of our young people to be expended in the dubious expectation that the demise of Saddam will bring democracy to Iraq? And what of the inevitable death of thousands of Iraqis, - all of them made doubly victims - first of Saddam, then of Bush? Shall we add a new death toll to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (the figures are from the UN) who have died since the application of sanctions?

A war against Iraq has no logical connection to the tragic events of Sept. 11. Rather than diminishing terrorism, such an attack would further inflame anger against the United States and may well lead to more terrorist attacks. We have a right to wonder if the motive for war is not stopping terrorism but expanding US power and controlling Mideast oil.

A preemptive war against Iraq, legally impermissible, morally unpardonable, would be a cause for shame to future generations. Let the debate begin, not just in Congress, but throughout the nation."

And yes, there have been some amazing things done in Iraq, I am not saying that this hasn't happend, I am only saying that it not only doesn't matter what WE see, it matters what the rest of the world and the Iraq's see ...but that the horrible things have far outweighed the good, especially in many minds. This is why I say two things:

1) That the image of our abuses will remain far longer then any image of our "liberation"

2) In 50 years, we will forgive them for killing our babies, but we will never forgive ourselves for killing theirs. (Forgot who I am quoting there, but you should get the gist)

[Thomas Sway]

They found bombs, theyll find more. They will do anything to get republicans out of office, its sick.

So wait..."they" is now the Bush Administration AND democrats? confusion...


your the stupid ones!!!

aka "you're"?


If democrats come into office again our country will become pussy's just like the french

Our country (singular) will become pussy's (posessive singular as in "this is the pussy's hair")? I assume you were trying to say that our country will be a pussy? Like you imply the French are?


Vote for kerry who is a liar, hes got a history of it and dont deny it.

He don't eh?


Oh ya, why hasnt his ratings gone up???

Hasn't? As is "has not"? As in "oh ya, why has not his rating gone up?" That's..wonderfully written.


Vote for the party who cant support our troops or nation and are just too busy criticizing our president and what is right but they dont want to admitt it and are just being wimps.

Callous political debate terms: wimps and pussies


Its sick, your sick.

again - "you're"?


Go ahead say im "ignorant" or "incorrect" cause i know you will. Its what you do cause u always have to make things look good for your beliefs. I dont care what you say cause i know the truth and thats fine. Criticize me all you want and i bet youll take pleasure in it cause thats what you do....

Typically, don't most people who know what they're talking about try to end their statement with a strong statement to drive their point home and put doubt into those who oppose him? I didn't know what name calling and getting panicked and defensive was the proper way to seal off an argument. So by saying we "dont know the truth" and that we'll "take pleasure in it cause that's what [we] do" I assume this is a set up to try to make other opinions instantly look irrational and ill-founded?

Concept: Don't try to make other people look stupid for their opinions if yours is a butchered mess of horrible conventions, grammar and schoolyard name calling.

[alphanix]

...Did you read a single word of this letter???

I can use four words to give a miniscule idea of how they are alike.

Nixon Vietnam Bush Iraq.

But this isn't even the point, it's not like the purpose of this letter was to compare and contrast Bush and Nixon in as many ways as possible, it was, among other things, relating what Morris witnessed as a former senior staff member of the NSC during Vietnam to today and urging all those involved somehow in Bush's plans/administration to resign for they are contributing to the decay of our nation.
I read the letter. I was just stating my opinion to many people who said that Bush is similar to Nixon.

[CROMagnon]

Concept: Don't try to make other people look stupid for their opinions if yours is a butchered mess of horrible conventions, grammar and schoolyard name calling.

I couldn't agree more. The reasons you just stated are why debates which should be healthy, open and progressive often devolve into petty, aimless fights.

[alphanix]

Democrats will run this country to the ground and will burn it in hell. When Bush came into office he had the hard job of cleaning up all the shit the democrats and Clinton did. You ppl say bush lied to us about the weapons...well tell me this, what was that serine gas bomb in iraq? your liberal news sources fuckin down played it saying it was a "small amount" or "it was from before desert storm when the truth is thats just a bunch of bullshit.They found bombs, theyll find more. They will do anything to get republicans out of office, its sick. You ppl think the conservatives are being brainwashed or w/e...wake up you idiots!!!! your the stupid ones!!! If democrats come into office again our country will become pussy's just like the french...if thats what u want then by all means vote the way you vote. Go ahead, vote for the party that supports killing babies. Go ahead, vote for the party that wont let us use oil in alaska because of an "endangered animal" and they think its better to import oil and then the tankers crash and pollute the ocean (hello thats why gas is so high). Vote for kerry who is a liar, hes got a history of it and dont deny it. Oh ya, why hasnt his ratings gone up??? Vote for the party who cant support our troops or nation and are just too busy criticizing our president and what is right but they dont want to admitt it and are just being wimps. You ppl made up the shit about us goin to iraq for oil and now ur trying to make it seem bush said it himself. Its sick, your sick.

Go ahead say im "ignorant" or "incorrect" cause i know you will. Its what you do cause u always have to make things look good for your beliefs. I dont care what you say cause i know the truth and thats fine. Criticize me all you want and i bet youll take pleasure in it cause thats what you do....

WOW! :shocked: You are very brave to post that on here. I agree with many parts of that, seeing as I am a REPUBLICAN.

[Thomas Sway]

I couldn't agree more. The reasons you just stated are why debates which should be healthy, open and progressive often devolve into petty, aimless fights.

Exactly. Nothing is gained by putting other people down. If you have a good point to make - make it by educating the rest of us. If you don't then don't talk.

[Jason Tate]

Exactly. Nothing is gained by putting other people down. If you have a good point to make - make it by educating the rest of us. If you don't then don't talk.
That's exactly how I feel, I almost don't even feel like wasting a response if the name calling comes out to full extent. It's the best tactic for those who have no valid argument I suppose.

[Thomas Sway]

Ok, I'm getting really sick of the people who say "Democrats are so stupid" or comments similiar to alphanix's which claim "I agree because I'm a REPUBLICAN!"

Look people. While political parties have opinions that most of their members agree on, that doesn't necessarily mean that you HAVE to as well. These things aren't set into stone. Don't let our country turn into a massive democrat vs. republican juggernaut. We need to use our heads and make up our own opinions on individual issues. Just because you are a democrat doesn't mean you necessarily want abortions. Just because you align yourself as a republican (or your parents do) doesn't mean that you automatically should support this war. So don't come out and start proclaiming yourself as one party or another as if you've just joined a team and now you're going to fight for their views until the death.

Make your own educated opinions.

[CROMagnon]

I also fail to understand why something like this would automatically be labeled as liberal propaganda by certain participants of this forum. Morris clearly stated that this had nothing to do with party affiliation, and even if you'd like to write it off as a rhetorical device, you still have to take into account the intent of the letter. Besides, it's not like a card-carrying Republican can't disagree with Bush. The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if every man followed their party leader blindly. Man can't go around not questioning his motives or beliefs, it's not his nature.

[Thomas Sway]

That's exactly how I feel, I almost don't even feel like wasting a response if the name calling comes out to full extent. It's the best tactic for those who have no valid argument I suppose.

Yeah, unless you can lay down a response that basically makes their name calling look ridiculous and just helps solidify your point. Much like you did with your...2 or 3 screen long rebuttle. LOL. Well said.

[CROMagnon]

That's exactly how I feel, I almost don't even feel like wasting a response if the name calling comes out to full extent. It's the best tactic for those who have no valid argument I suppose.

Or like I say, profanity is the last resort of a losing argument.

[CROMagnon]

Ok, I'm getting really sick of the people who say "Democrats are so stupid" or comments similiar to alphanix's which claim "I agree because I'm a REPUBLICAN!"

Look people. While political parties have opinions that most of their members agree on, that doesn't necessarily mean that you HAVE to as well. These things aren't set into stone. Don't let our country turn into a massive democrat vs. republican juggernaut. We need to use our heads and make up our own opinions on individual issues. Just because you are a democrat doesn't mean you necessarily want abortions. Just because you align yourself as a republican (or your parents do) doesn't mean that you automatically should support this war. So don't come out and start proclaiming yourself as one party or another as if you've just joined a team and now you're going to fight for their views until the death.

Make your own educated opinions.

Yeah, what he said. (Damn you, you beat me to it.)

[alphanix]

Ok, I'm getting really sick of the people who say "Democrats are so stupid" or comments similiar to alphanix's which claim "I agree because I'm a REPUBLICAN!"
I never said democrats are stupid, and I didn't say I agree with all of what he said I just said I agreed with some of what he said.

[Thomas Sway]

The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if every man followed their party leader blindly. Man can't go around not questioning his motives or beliefs, it's not his nature.

"This country, with it's institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they should exercise their constitutional right of amending it" - Abraham Lincoln

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion" - Jefferson

[Thomas Sway]

I never said democrats are stupid, and I didn't say I agree with all of what he said I just said I agreed with some of what he said.

Don't worry I wasn't trying to single you out. It was just a convenient example to lead to a point I was going for.

[TylerH03eXc]

we took some whacky quiz thing in government last year that asked questions and it determined if you were a republican or a democrat. Half the people who thought they were something were something else. There are a lot of people claim to be part of a certain political party, but really have no idea what theyre talking about, or are just following what others have told them and aren't thinking for themselves. I'm not sayin everyone on this site is that way but it definetley shows in people (21andinvincible).

p.s. jason needs to run for office with as much research as he does, and i know a lot of you think he just looks at "liberal propaganda" but he seems smart enough to look at both sides of an arguement before making a judgement.

[Jared Kaufman]

Ok, I NEVER post in these political forums. I'm one of the most neutral people you'll ever meet or talk to as I don't believe gov't can make a change for the better and acheive true / complete peace. However, if I were going to label myself something it would be of the 'independent' kind and would tell you all that both sides have pros and cons. For example, I agree the environment should be taken care of which Bush obviously could care less about. Second, I'm against abortion which the left tends to be for. So there are things on both sides I don't agree about and I think both sides are wrong in several aspects. This just brings me to the point, though, that I think there was a solid enough reason to take Saddam out. Should they have used the WMD reasoning? Of course not. Should they have even gone to or waited for the UN's approval? I'd have to go 'no' with that as well seeing as how most of them were probably bribed to keep the US out of Iraq. Just the main fact that Saddam did fund some terrorists and even harbored the al Qaeda operative (forgot his name, Shadar, or something like that) when he was injured fighting in Afghanistan (amputated his leg, rehabilitated him, etc.), who lets not forget is leading the assualt NOW against the troops, is reason enough to believe that he was a threat. Also, the fact he was a horrible dictator who liked to torture, rape, murder, his own people is reason enough to take a man out. That also doesn't mean N.Korea isn't more of a threat. To me that is the MOST DANGEROUS country out there right now (admitting the WMDs they have, hatred towards us, etc.). I don't know the point I'm trying to make and what not, but I just feel that neither left, democrat, right, republican, green or whatever can completely fix this world and completely acheive peace. "It is not to man alone to direct his own step"

[alphanix]

jason needs to run for office with as much research as he does, and i know a lot of you think he just looks at "liberal propaganda" but he seems smart enough to look at both sides of an arguement before making a judgement.

hahaha Jason Tate for President '08 BABY!
(yes I know he isn't 35)

[ghostyouare]

I would be curious to see what countries are right now, at this point in time, supporting us (and not just the political talking heads sucking off America's tit, but the actual people of the country (we do promote democracy) that support us, in the majority - my conjecture is that the numbers are far smaller than 51%). Because everything I have found online, and seen printed, is in direct condradiction to what you just said. Combine that with someone whose job was pretty much to analyse foreign policy comes out and says our F.P is in shambles, and makes some valid reasons as to why, and I lean towards belieiving him.

you know the majority of america supports the war just not President Bush. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=210; polls are shit, it just shows out of like 1,000 people who supports the war and who doesn't. Nytimes said the support for war is down http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/politics/29POLL.html?ex=1085716800&en=0e23cb3e29c45b41&ei=5070 and NYtimes said they only ask 1,000 some odd people.. So i dont see how anyone uses polls as a credible arguement. I mean how can 1000 people speak for a whole country.

[ActorInThisPlay]

Ok, I NEVER post in these political forums. I'm one of the most neutral people you'll ever meet or talk to as I don't believe gov't can make a change for the better and acheive true / complete peace. However, if I were going to label myself something it would be of the 'independent' kind and would tell you all that both sides have pros and cons. For example, I agree the environment should be taken care of which Bush obviously could care less about. Second, I'm against abortion which the left tends to be for. So there are things on both sides I don't agree about and I think both sides are wrong in several aspects. This just brings me to the point, though, that I think there was a solid enough reason to take Saddam out. Should they have used the WMD reasoning? Of course not. Should they have even gone to or waited for the UN's approval? I'd have to go 'no' with that as well seeing as how most of them were probably bribed to keep the US out of Iraq. Just the main fact that Saddam did fund some terrorists and even harbored the al Qaeda operative (forgot his name, Shadar, or something like that) when he was injured fighting in Afghanistan (amputated his leg, rehabilitated him, etc.), who lets not forget is leading the assualt NOW against the troops, is reason enough to believe that he was a threat. Also, the fact he was a horrible dictator who liked to torture, rape, murder, his own people is reason enough to take a man out. That also doesn't mean N.Korea isn't more of a threat. To me that is the MOST DANGEROUS country out there right now (admitting the WMDs they have, hatred towards us, etc.). I don't know the point I'm trying to make and what not, but I just feel that neither left, democrat, right, republican, green or whatever can completely fix this world and completely acheive peace. "It is not to man alone to direct his own step"

smartest post of the day...I applaud you for that very well put argument for both sides. I am the same way basically because I do see flaws in both sides of the argument but am not going to take sides. Peace will never be achieved no matter how much you hope/pray for it, it won't happen. Humans are animals and also have animal like tendencies. Humans are not perfect nor will they ever be. War will continue until our children's children's children's children die. Saying that peace can happen is just being naive.

[Thomas Sway]

Humans are not perfect nor will they ever be. War will continue until our children's children's children's children die. Saying that peace can happen is just being naive.

So we should just sit idly and allow us to destroy ourselves since you imply that it's inevitable? I agree that there will always be forms of conflict as that's part of human nature. However, the idea that we shouldn't develop opinions and fight against what we think is wrong is just something I don't believe. Yes there will always be conflict, but we should fight to see that these are resolved quickly and with the least amount of pain or suffering we can. All arguments have flaws - that's what distinguishes argument from fact, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't put our effort into supporting the one we believe in.

[CROMagnon]

smartest post of the day...I applaud you for that very well put argument for both sides. I am the same way basically because I do see flaws in both sides of the argument but am not going to take sides. Peace will never be achieved no matter how much you hope/pray for it, it won't happen. Humans are animals and also have animal like tendencies. Humans are not perfect nor will they ever be. War will continue until our children's children's children's children die. Saying that peace can happen is just being naive.

Not going to disagree with you, but damn, what a bleak world view. I don't think I'd make it if I didn't believe that someone somewhere down the line figures out a way to stop spending life. I have to believe that men are not simply animals, but rational animals, who will one day come to their senses. I have to believe that virtue as an international ideal will reappear, however naive that may sound. I really can't see believing anything else.
I think Switzerland has it pretty good, they never go to war. Or is that Sweden?

[Jared Kaufman]

smartest post of the day...I applaud you for that very well put argument for both sides. I am the same way basically because I do see flaws in both sides of the argument but am not going to take sides. Peace will never be achieved no matter how much you hope/pray for it, it won't happen. Humans are animals and also have animal like tendencies. Humans are not perfect nor will they ever be. War will continue until our children's children's children's children die. Saying that peace can happen is just being naive.
Well, I've never liked to use this site / forum to express my views and beliefs, but I agree with you to the extent that MAN will never be able to make peace. I am, however, a very religious person who one day believes God will take care of the wicked on the earth (wiping them out) and then will make the earth a peaceful place once again (as well as cleaning it up) w/o having to worry about, crime, war, pestilence, famine, and so on. That's just me, though, and I don't expect ANYONE to share the same views or agree with me.

[Bikeage]

I think Switzerland has it pretty good, they never go to war. Or is that Sweden?

just going to comment on this :p... it's pretty much both, but us swedes have had a really violent past lol, but we've calmed down ;). Sweden's been a neutral country for a while (oh ya, except the whole nazi gold deal), and as far as I know Switzerland hasn't been involved in any major wars for a while as well.

[Thomas Sway]

Well, I've never liked to use this site / forum to express my views and beliefs, but I agree with you to the extent that MAN will never be able to make peace. I am, however, a very religious person who one day believes God will take care of the wicked on the earth (wiping them out) and then will make the earth a peaceful place once again (as well as cleaning it up) w/o having to worry about, crime, war, pestilence, famine, and so on. That's just me, though, and I don't expect ANYONE to share the same views or agree with me.

What religion is that where the wicked are erased and the pure remain on earth as opposed to going to heaven?

[Tmovielife16]

He's referring to the Apocalypse, im not sure what specific religion believes in it, but i think a couple of them do

[Tmovielife16]

Or Judgement Day

[Thomas Sway]

He's referring to the Apocalypse, im not sure what specific religion believes in it, but i think a couple of them do

I thought in the apocalype Christ returned and then took all the pure and forgiven back with him to heaven, then sealing it off forever, leaving the sinners rot.

[Tmovielife16]

I thought in the apocalype Christ returned and then took all the pure and forgiven back with him to heaven, then sealing it off forever, leaving the sinners rot.
Oh yeah, your right, well then i have no fuckin clue

[Thomas Sway]

Maybe we're both retarted.

[Tmovielife16]

Probably

[CROMagnon]

just going to comment on this :p... it's pretty much both, but us swedes have had a really violent past lol, but we've calmed down ;). Sweden's been a neutral country for a while (oh ya, except the whole nazi gold deal), and as far as I know Switzerland hasn't been involved in any major wars for a while as well.

Or better yet, to avoid the whole Nazi thing (which is a thing with Switzerland too), what about New Zealand? They're pretty much out of the international spotlight.

[Jason Tate]

Or better yet, to avoid the whole Nazi thing (which is a thing with Switzerland too), what about New Zealand? They're pretty much out of the international spotlight.
Didn't the Catholic church "avoid" the whole Nazi thing as well? Heh.

[CROMagnon]

Didn't the Catholic church "avoid" the whole Nazi thing as well? Heh.

What do you mean? By not trying to stop them and then, years later, apologizing for its non-intervention in the holocaust? Last I checked Hitler hated the Catholic church, saw it as a threat to his control, and he did everything he could to cut anything Catholic out of German territory. Yeah, they signed a virtual non-aggression pact early in Hitler's reign, but that was soon violated by Hitler. Now HE was paranoid.
Silence does not equal assent. It was a tough decision, and we only deem it right or wrong from our perspective.
Anyway, that's not the point. I was just trying to say that neutrality is the best policy in my mind. Or maybe I should say the isolationism espoused by Thomas Paine and George Washington, and followed up in the 20's and 30's. Amended, of course, for our time.

[Jason Tate]

What do you mean? By not trying to stop them and then, years later, apologizing for its non-intervention in the holocaust? Last I checked Hitler hated the Catholic church, saw it as a threat to his control, and he did everything he could to cut anything Catholic out of German territory. Yeah, they signed a virtual non-aggression pact early in Hitler's reign, but that was soon violated by Hitler. Now HE was paranoid.
Silence does not equal assent. It was a tough decision, and we only deem it right or wrong from our perspective.
Anyway, that's not the point. I was just trying to say that neutrality is the best policy in my mind. Or maybe I should say the isolationism espoused by Thomas Paine and George Washington, and followed up in the 20's and 30's. Amended, of course, for our time.
Actually I was just fishing because of their silence thing. Actually, if you wanna go total paranoid for a while:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

I of course, have absolutely no clue about the situation, and don't feel like looking in to it, I was all in all, just kidding .. but some of those pictures are a little weird.

This article:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0033.html

Has some good sound bites too:

"Though Hitler felt a particular urgency — and hatred — when dealing with Jews and Communists, he viewed the Catholic Church as a pernicious opponent, a deeply-entrenched threat that must be controlled and eventually uprooted from German life in order to establish his promised Thousand-Year-Reich. From his early years of political dreaming, from within the pages of Mein Kampf to the Table Talk Hitler himself made his contempt for the ‘slave’ ideology of Christianity and its Jewish roots perfectly clear. Though the scale of Christian persecution cannot be compared to the Jewish Holocaust of 1941-1945, except perhaps in Poland, the ultimate destruction of Christianity was one of the Nazis long-term aims."

Damn Nazi's - scary bastards.

[ActorInThisPlay]

So we should just sit idly and allow us to destroy ourselves since you imply that it's inevitable? I agree that there will always be forms of conflict as that's part of human nature. However, the idea that we shouldn't develop opinions and fight against what we think is wrong is just something I don't believe. Yes there will always be conflict, but we should fight to see that these are resolved quickly and with the least amount of pain or suffering we can. All arguments have flaws - that's what distinguishes argument from fact, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't put our effort into supporting the one we believe in.


First of all re-read my post and then tell me that I said anything about just sitting quietly and not fighting for what we believe in. I don't think I even mentioned anything about developing opinions. I simply stated that war will continue for as long as we live and longer. Peace cannot be achieved unless a greater force imposes it (i.e. a God of some sort). We are animals whether you want to admit it or not. Sure we are more intelligent, more rational at times, etc. The fact is that we still have animal tendencies because that is what we evolved from. I do agree that conflict should be solved as quickly and painlessly but that is not always a option.

[ActorInThisPlay]

Not going to disagree with you, but damn, what a bleak world view. I don't think I'd make it if I didn't believe that someone somewhere down the line figures out a way to stop spending life. I have to believe that men are not simply animals, but rational animals, who will one day come to their senses. I have to believe that virtue as an international ideal will reappear, however naive that may sound. I really can't see believing anything else.
I think Switzerland has it pretty good, they never go to war. Or is that Sweden?

That is a good belief to have but to me at least is as you said naive. History repeats itself and it us as humans that are dumb enough to let that happen. There will be more Hitlers/Stalins/Husseins again and we will go to war again and more people will die. That is the way things work and have worked since the beginning of human life. You tell me how that could ever change unless a greater force enacts upon the evil in the world? Switzerland is good right now. Later down the line that could change. No one or one country is perfect and there will never be one. We will never have a president that I or any of you are completely to the fullest extent satisfied with. I am sorry if it may seem bleak to you but it is the truth as I see it and to me there is no way around it. It is inevitable.

[Jason Tate]

That is a good belief to have but to me at least is as you said naive. History repeats itself and it us as humans that are dumb enough to let that happen. There will be more Hitlers/Stalins/Husseins again and we will go to war again and more people will die. That is the way things work and have worked since the beginning of human life. You tell me how that could ever change unless a greater force enacts upon the evil in the world? Switzerland is good right now. Later down the line that could change. No one or one country is perfect and there will never be one. We will never have a president that I or any of you are completely to the fullest extent satisfied with. I am sorry if it may seem bleak to you but it is the truth as I see it and to me there is no way around it. It is inevitable.
History repeats itself when we forget history, or have someone in the head office that probably failed history. We can however move towards the evolution of man, and assume that if there are enough intellegent people in the world, the true idea of a republic (yes, we are supposed to be a republic - not a true democracy) can force a radical shift in nature, and we can work towards peace. Education is what can, and will, finally begin to help put an end to the "Hitlers" of the world. At least that's my belief to where we should start. If you want to get theological, and say that there will always be 'Satan' tempting those to turn evil regardless of education, then you would have to also assume that God has impowered men to fight this evil. We then are again at a state of war. I find it scary, and sad, the amount of wars and battles that must take place in the 'end of days' in the Bible. I would like to believe that we would at some point no longer need to kill in order to ensure safety. It seems like a smaller version of "kill um all and let God sort it out."

This therefore leads us down the path to a much larger philosophical question, what is the root of evil? Second, who are we to judge what is evil? Human kind has always tried to have a moral template for good and evil, but this mold has been changed time and time again, and of course varies by culture, it will always be impossible to enforce any kind of moral code unto the world. If we are to say, for example, that a moral code says, "killing is wrong" - period. Then why should we kill to make sure others abide by this code? It's all a cycle that until broken, will never stop. The problem (I believe) lays in a few basic human natures, one being that people will kill for lines in the sand, and or someone's beliefs. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. (- Albert Einstein)

[CROMagnon]

This therefore leads us down the path to a much larger philosophical question, what is the root of evil? Second, who are we to judge what is evil? Human kind has always tried to have a moral template for good and evil, but this mold has been changed time and time again, and of course varies by culture, it will always be impossible to enforce any kind of moral code unto the world.

I do think there are some standards that every culture does abide by, though I hesitate to try and name them. Being part of the same species has got to count for something.
And yeah, I figured that Catholic thing was tongue in cheek, wasn't trying to get all defensive about it. Those pics, well, if a theoretically peaceful entity like a church had an insane inhumane monster right on its doorstep...well, I can understand. Maybe not agree, but understand.

[ActorInThisPlay]

This therefore leads us down the path to a much larger philosophical question, what is the root of evil? Second, who are we to judge what is evil? Human kind has always tried to have a moral template for good and evil, but this mold has been changed time and time again, and of course varies by culture, it will always be impossible to enforce any kind of moral code unto the world. If we are to say, for example, that a moral code says, "killing is wrong" - period. Then why should we kill to make sure others abide by this code? It's all a cycle that until broken, will never stop. The problem (I believe) lays in a few basic human natures, one being that people will kill for lines in the sand, and or someone's beliefs. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. (- Albert Einstein)

My philosophy teacher defined evil as basically a wrong choice. For example to steal or not steal is a choice that all of us make everyday. To kill or not to kill doesn't seem like a choice we make because it is obvious to us but to others is not. As long as free will exists in the world, evil will exist as well. Not everyone is educated in the world and the problem is that even the smartest men in the world turn evil sometimes. Hitler was not dumb or uneducated. He was a very smart man. There is a fine line between genius and insanity. I believe it was Plato that said that the more education a man gets, the less evil he will become. It is a very good idea but it has flaws because smart men can be evil as well. Like I said evil is a choice and as long we have choices there will always be people making the choice towards evil.

[CROMagnon]

I believe it was Plato that said that the more education a man gets, the less evil he will become. It is a very good idea but it has flaws because smart men can be evil as well.

I think with Plato it was the education of man in the ways of virtue. Also, for Plato, no man is voluntarily evil: "For no man is voluntarily bad; but the bad become bad by reason of an ill disposition of the body and bad education, things which are hateful to every man and happen to him against his will." That's from the Timaeus, possibly Plato's most difficult tract. Good is of the soul, evil of the body, etc. Don't want to get all the way into it.
Not trying to disagree with you since it's an obvious irreconcilable difference of opinion, just clearing a couple things up. Plato, though, would tend to disagree on the "smart men can be evil as well" tip. Smart men would be those most opposed to vice, since educated means virtuous, as far as Plato is concerned.
One more quote for the fire: "But however that may be, we should endeavour as far as we can by education, and studies, and learning, to avoid vice and attain virtue; this, however, is part of another subject."

[Jason Tate]

I think with Plato it was the education of man in the ways of virtue. Also, for Plato, no man is voluntarily evil: "For no man is voluntarily bad; but the bad become bad by reason of an ill disposition of the body and bad education, things which are hateful to every man and happen to him against his will." That's from the Timaeus, possibly Plato's most difficult tract. Good is of the soul, evil of the body, etc. Don't want to get all the way into it.
Not trying to disagree with you since it's an obvious irreconcilable difference of opinion, just clearing a couple things up. Plato, though, would tend to disagree on the "smart men can be evil as well" tip. Smart men would be those most opposed to vice, since educated means virtuous, as far as Plato is concerned.
One more quote for the fire: "But however that may be, we should endeavour as far as we can by education, and studies, and learning, to avoid vice and attain virtue; this, however, is part of another subject."
Interesting. I feel myself siding with Plato, I'll have to give this more thought.

"The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant." - Plato

[ActorInThisPlay]

I think with Plato it was the education of man in the ways of virtue. Also, for Plato, no man is voluntarily evil: "For no man is voluntarily bad; but the bad become bad by reason of an ill disposition of the body and bad education, things which are hateful to every man and happen to him against his will." That's from the Timaeus, possibly Plato's most difficult tract. Good is of the soul, evil of the body, etc. Don't want to get all the way into it.
Not trying to disagree with you since it's an obvious irreconcilable difference of opinion, just clearing a couple things up. Plato, though, would tend to disagree on the "smart men can be evil as well" tip. Smart men would be those most opposed to vice, since educated means virtuous, as far as Plato is concerned.
One more quote for the fire: "But however that may be, we should endeavour as far as we can by education, and studies, and learning, to avoid vice and attain virtue; this, however, is part of another subject."

Plato said that ignorance is the source of all evil. He thought that being smarter in turn meant being less evil. I have said that very smart men can also be evil which is a direct contradiction to Plato. Actually Aristotle was the philosopher that brought about the concept of virtue and had the cardinal virtues: Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, and Prudence. Plato is also the philosopher who thought that the ideal society consisted of the philosophers as the rulers, the military as the enforcers, and workers as the producers. He did not believe in democracy. Aristotle on the other hand did. I think Aristotle's view on ethics was greater then Plato's because a good person is not one that makes a right choice but one that makes a habit of it or the concept of virtue. Like I said Plato simply believed that ignorance cause evil which is apparently not true in all cases.

[CROMagnon]

Plato said that ignorance is the source of all evil. He thought that being smarter in turn meant being less evil. I have said that very smart men can also be evil which is a direct contradiction to Plato. Actually Aristotle was the philosopher that brought about the concept of virtue and had the cardinal virtues: Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, and Prudence. Plato is also the philosopher who thought that the ideal society consisted of the philosophers as the rulers, the military as the enforcers, and workers as the producers. He did not believe in democracy. Aristotle on the other hand did. I think Aristotle's view on ethics was greater then Plato's because a good person is not one that makes a right choice but one that makes a habit of it or the concept of virtue. Like I said Plato simply believed that ignorance cause evil which is apparently not true in all cases.

Well I just thought I'd add what I found. A couple of those quotes do support your stance. But virtue and vice are both discussed in several Platonic texts (i.e. piety in Euthyphro, courage in Laches, etc.). Plato was also quite fond of temperance. And I don't think Plato ever said that being good ever just entailed making one good choice, there is a Platonic sense of ethics which describes the good life, I just don't have it on hand. Plato said, "Virtue is a kind of health, beauty, and good habit of the soul." Both men value the habit of goodness as indicative of virtue. Both also say that virtue is an element of the soul. We can't forget that Plato was Aristotle's teacher, and that there are some ideas with the same root in both of their works. Oh, and yeah, evil isn't always relegated to the ignorant (I'm a fan of the noble savage theory), but I think Plato would say that any man who finds evil or vice attractive is either insane or uneducated, since for him, evil is a hateful and unnatural thing.
Personally, I tend to take as my own Aquinas' idea of evil as being privative in nature, a lack, imperfection or dearth that manifests itself in wrong choices. But that's just me.

[ActorInThisPlay]

Well I just thought I'd add what I found. A couple of those quotes do support your stance. But virtue and vice are both discussed in several Platonic texts (i.e. piety in Euthyphro, courage in Laches, etc.). Plato was also quite fond of temperance. And I don't think Plato ever said that being good ever just entailed making one good choice, there is a Platonic sense of ethics which describes the good life, I just don't have it on hand. Plato said, "Virtue is a kind of health, beauty, and good habit of the soul." Both men value the habit of goodness as indicative of virtue. Both also say that virtue is an element of the soul. We can't forget that Plato was Aristotle's teacher, and that there are some ideas with the same root in both of their works. Oh, and yeah, evil isn't always relegated to the ignorant (I'm a fan of the noble savage theory), but I think Plato would say that any man who finds evil or vice attractive is either insane or uneducated, since for him, evil is a hateful and unnatural thing.
Personally, I tend to take as my own Aquinas' idea of evil as being privative in nature, a lack, imperfection or dearth that manifests itself in wrong choices. But that's just me.

Both of their views on ethics were similar I will give you that. Although Plato was Aristotle's teacher, Aristotle broke away and formed his own school that was in direct competition with Plato's. Although Plato taught Aristotle some of what he knew, Aristotle and Plato were both very different. Like I said before, Plato thought that aristocracy was the best form of government while Aristotle believed it was democracy. Plato also believed that our spirit came down to Earth full of knowledge so that whenever we learn something we aren't actually learning but remembering instead. Aristotle believed that nothing we know is innate but we learn everything from experiences or others. Both are similar in some aspects yet very different in other aspects. I tend to agree more with Aristotle for most things although Thomas Acquinas is almost the exact same as Aristotle. Buber on the other hand has some very good ideas in his philosophy so I really enjoy him the most I think.

[CROMagnon]

Both of their views on ethics were similar I will give you that. Although Plato was Aristotle's teacher, Aristotle broke away and formed his own school that was in direct competition with Plato's. Although Plato taught Aristotle some of what he knew, Aristotle and Plato were both very different. Like I said before, Plato thought that aristocracy was the best form of government while Aristotle believed it was democracy. Plato also believed that our spirit came down to Earth full of knowledge so that whenever we learn something we aren't actually learning but remembering instead. Aristotle believed that nothing we know is innate but we learn everything from experiences or others. Both are similar in some aspects yet very different in other aspects. I tend to agree more with Aristotle for most things although Thomas Acquinas is almost the exact same as Aristotle. Buber on the other hand has some very good ideas in his philosophy so I really enjoy him the most I think.

I'm fully aware of the differences (i.e. learning as recollection vs. learning as in the image of the army turning to fight). I'm more of a neo-Platonist, esp. Longinus. I just get so caught up in ancient/medieval philosophy that a discussion like this is hard to tear away from. Never read Buber, maybe I should. Once these damn comps are over, that is.

[ActorInThisPlay]

I'm fully aware of the differences (i.e. learning as recollection vs. learning as in the image of the army turning to fight). I'm more of a neo-Platonist, esp. Longinus. I just get so caught up in ancient/medieval philosophy that a discussion like this is hard to tear away from. Never read Buber, maybe I should. Once these damn comps are over, that is.

yeah definitely check out Buber. He is a 20th century philosopher so hes pretty recent. He has some good things to say and I think you would like him.