posted July 25, 2005 02:37 AM            

You call me a leftist, but I've never participated in ANY march. I've never signed a petition to impeach Bush.

Regarding the water situation I've demonstrated OVER AND OVER to you, even using a memo from Dick Lugar's office to show the US's direct connection to the health and safety of Iraq. If the US, was so concerned with the health and safety of Iraqis as you keep saying they/we were, why wouldn't they send the alternative water treatment methods? Why would we put their water safety in jeopardy? You say it was up to Saddam. Someone from Iraq put the req[uisition] in. The US and England, as I've shown, always approved or disapproved, by delaying indefinitely, the items Iraq wanted that could possibly be used for weapons. Are you saying that those Americans who overlooked Oil For Food couldn't figure out the reason Iraq was asking for items to rebuild their infrastructure?

You keep trying to portray yourself as one who sympathizes with the opressed citizens of Iraq. Is this only in relation to Saddam's repression? Where were you demonstrating for the safety of Iraqis during the 90's? Where was the Republican march for liberation of Iraq? Sure everyone said Saddam was bad. Everyone was worried about them having weapons, but where was the outcry for the safety of innocent Iraqi citizens?

Now, tell me again Jwhop, how conservatives have any regard whatsoever for the Iraqi people. Don't you ever tire of having your feeble arguments slapped down?

quote:

---

You can stuff that argument Acoustic because I'm not at all persuaded by arguments the US must be seen to be better than our enemies. If you think this is a popularity contest, you're mistaken. Of course, I just see this line of attack on the US as one more lying talking point in the arsenal of the lying left.

---

Wow! That's pretty sad, really. You think peace comes through violence. Mine wasn't any attack on the US, it was on your violent ideas, and now you're verifying that you believe peace comes through violence. That, to me, really shows a link between you and terrorists, despots, former and current communist leaders. You keep trying to lump leftists with these folks, but you're demonstrating that you're far closer in mindset. That's honestly really scary.

quote:

---

If you really wanted to protect innocent people around the world Acoustic, you would be clamoring for the death of terrorists around the world..because it's terrorists who are deliberately killing innocent civilians.

---

This is really surprisingly disturbing that you can't grasp the truth of the matter. I think we need to start praying for you, or something.

"The cause of violence is not ignorance. It is self-interest. Only reverance can restrain violence - reverance for human life and the environment." William Sloan Coffin

"The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked (Proverbs 10:11)."

"Much violence is based on the illusion that life is a property to be defended and not to be shared." Henri Nouwen

"Nothing good ever comes of violence." Martin Luther

"Christianity, with its doctrine of humility, of forgiveness, of love, is incompatible with the state, with its haughtiness, its violence, its punishment, its wars" Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy (Russian)

"If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos." Martin Luther King, Jr.

posted July 25, 2005 02:59 AM            

Say we kill a terrorist, and that terrorist's family decides to avenge his death? How will we know? Do we have to exterminate everyone with any link to terrorism?

posted July 25, 2005 03:45 PM            

People shun knowledge for many reasons. Those on the radical left are particularly guilty of failing to get the facts on matters they discuss. The principle reason being that once those facts are made clear to them, they can no longer use an issue to beat up on the United States...as you continue to attempt. The most radical of the radicals just don't give a damn about facts at all and will continue to put forth lying statements of blame long after the central premise of their allegations have been proved false.

It's interesting to note the people you quote are themselves radical leftists...as in the case of William Sloan Coffin, a so called minister who was at the forefront of the Nuclear Freeze movement and also attempted to prevent the US from engaging the little communist bast*rd Daniel Ortega for attempting to spread communist revolution in Central America. It's also interesting the American traitor John Kerry was involved in the very same activity..both. Just an aside here Acoustic, but why are the people you choose to quote always on the side of communists?

Now Acoustic, I know you have absolutely no historical perspective so let's go back and revisit the Nuclear Freeze, who was for it, against it and why they were. I'm going to take you back to the early days of the Reagan Administration and describe the military situation then visa vie NATO and the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union outnumbered NATO forces on the ground in Europe with a huge superiority of men in arms and armor...tanks. It was said by a Soviet general that if all the Soviet tanks were lined up in a single file, he could walk all the way back to Moscow on the tops of the tanks without his feet ever touching the ground. The Soviet Union had also deployed tactical nuclear weapons and short range ballistic missiles pointed at NATO forces. The only thing preventing a Soviet takeover of the whole of Europe was NATO ...which was under staffed and under armed in relation to Soviet forces deployed, that and the sure and certain knowledge that the US would consider that an act of war and almost certainly go after them. The calculation for the Soviets was, could they get away with attacking Western Europe, quickly capturing all the land area and bargain with the US not to intervene, before we could mobilize sufficient forces to oppose their takeover.

Against that backdrop, the Nuclear Freeze movement developed, led by William Sloan Coffin and the American traitor, John Kerry, among others but Coffin was the head of the organization formerly known as SANE which was heavily penetrated by communists and which later merged with the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, becoming known then as SANE/Freeze and still later becoming known as Peace Action.

They sought to freeze nuclear weapons deployed in Europe at their current levels. Let it be noted the US was talking about deploying tactical nuclear weapons and short range ballistic missiles in Europe to deter any Soviet thrust into Western Europe and offset the Soviet superiority of men and armor, tanks, but hadn't done so.

Who would have benefited from such a nuclear freeze at current levels and who would have been left at a disadvantage. The Soviet Union already had nuclear weapons deployed pointed at NATO and Western Europe and would have benefited and NATO and Western Europe would have been left open to a sudden thrust of Soviet forces into Western Europe which would have overwhelmed NATO forces, the time for which was calculated in days, not months or years, so they would have been left at a disadvantage both in terms of men, armor, tanks and deterrence.

Wisely, Ronald Reagan told the Nuclear Freeze crowd to stuff it and deployed tactical nuclear weapons and short range ballistic missiles to oppose and offset the Soviet advantage. We know now that Reagan was absolutely right to do so because the Soviets got the message loud and clear. Further, the nuclear freeze movement was a communist inspired, funded and led movement. The anticipated Soviet attempt to take over Western Europe never developed, as a result of Reagan's actions but it was the full intent of Coffin, Kerry and others to prevent Reagan from deploying offsetting nuclear capabilities.

This is your boy you choose to quote Acoustic, William Sloan Coffin, a radical leftist agitator. Why are all your opinions derived from and associated with radical leftists Acoustic?

Do you have any idea just how far to the radical left you are? I would just bet you never, ever bounce your radical anti-America leftist rhetoric off anyone you don't already know is just as far to the left as you are...I mean face to face...not here.

You have gone even further now in blaming the United States for the condition of the Iraqi water supply. Your new position is that the United States repressed Iraqi citizens by not SENDING and I mean not sending UNORDERED Ionization and/or Peroxide water treatment equipment to Iraq, even though Iraq was a sovereign nation with a head of state, who was responsible for everything pertinent that happened inside Iraq. How far will you go in attempts to paint the US as the bad actor Acoustic? Is there no limit to your twisting of facts and reality? Do you even live in the real world?

The most negative thing you've been able to summon to say about Saddam Hussein was that he wasn't good for the Iraqi people. Hello Acoustic, we're talking about the Butcher of Baghdad here, the butcher who has been charged by his own citizens with crimes against humanity...but to you Acoustic, Saddam was merely not good for his people.

Oh yes, and it was the US which repressed Iraqi citizens not Saddam Hussein. You have your head somewhere it doesn't belong Acoustic, pull it out, if you still can.

Always interesting to see people pull verses out of the bible...and totally out of context in attempts to bolster their points. You wanted to make a point about violence but didn't because you don't, as usual, know what you're talking about. Proverbs 10:11 and other verses before and after is a treatment on how to live peaceably with one's neighbors. Not nation to nation but person to person. Violence in the biblical context does not mean what you represent it to mean when you bring it up here. Violence is deliberate acts of aggression against those...in the case you cited, neighbors... innocent of any wrong doing Acoustic.

So Acoustic, when US forces kill terrorists are they committing acts of violence? Are terrorists innocent of any wrong doing? Is beheading civilians, deliberately blowing up civilians and children acts of the innocent? Or is it your opinion that those living in Iraq, the US, Britain and Europe are not innocent...by definition? Are people involved in rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq, by definition, not innocent? Do you consider Ward Churchill a leftist radical? He seems to share your same opinions about the US. The people blown up at the WTC were "little Eichmann's" and we all know Eichmann was not innocent. Just how far would you carry your allegation that the US repressed Iraqi citizens? Are we all, US citizens, then not guilty of repression of Iraqi citizens?...all except of course, you Acoustic, oh and those others who wanted to let Saddam buy concentrated chlorine so he could make chemical weapons.

You really need to get a grip..or at the very least correct your ignorance.

Just to show you the absolute tripe that violence....as you intended to use it, but didn't..meaning war....only begets more violence and to rub your nose in your absolute ignorance for alluding to such nonsense, I'm going to take you back in time again...but only a short journey. Perhaps you've heard of WWII...remember? The main antagonists were...Germany and Italy on one side, with Britain, France and later the US and Russia on the other side. In the Pacific it was Japan against the United States. Those wars ended with the total and unconditional surrender of Germany to the Allied powers in Europe and with the total and unconditional surrender of Japan to the United States..and other allied powers.

posted July 25, 2005 11:50 PM            

Quite a load of crap there today, eh Jwhop? I would get mad if it weren't so funny. You talking about ME being unknowledgable about the issues when time and time again you've been challenged to prove your points and you've been unable to do so. How is it logical, oh wise one, that the person who backs up his words with supporting evidence is less knowledgable than the person who only spouts opinion, and refuses to research the topic or heed the facts contained in the research on the topic he's talking about?

quote:

---

The most radical of the radicals just don't give a damn about facts at all and will continue to put forth lying statements of blame long after the central premise of their allegations have been proved false.

---

Yes, this describes YOU to a 'T.' You're constantly disproved, and yet you come back with more and more BS every day.

quote:

---

Just an aside here Acoustic, but why are the people you choose to quote always on the side of communists?

---

First, who are you trying to convince here, because everyone besides you knows I'm not a communist. Do you get a check from Carl Rove every time you falsely make that assertion or something?

I didn't know King David (or was it Solomon?) was a communist. I didn't know Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, Jr. were communists. I didn't know Tolstoy, talking about the violence of mother Russia was a communist. Hmmmm...faulty logic again.

I'm trying to read this history lesson of yours, except that I know you to be an uncredible source. Makes it a little difficult. Raise your integrity a bit, and maybe I'll reconsider.

quote:

---

Why are all your opinions derived from and associated with radical leftists Acoustic?

---

It's SO funny to see you say stuff like that with your NewsMax, and Ann Coulter posts. I'm guessing you don't get ironic humor do you?

quote:

---

This is your boy you choose to quote Acoustic, William Sloan Coffin, a radical leftist agitator.

---

Honestly, I don't know this guy from Adam. He had a good quote and I posted it. It dealt with your idea of self-interest in violence, and came back with the truth of the matter, which is that there has to be a moral component. You're trying to attack me because it's a statement and an idea you can't refute.

quote:

---

Do you have any idea just how far to the radical left you are?

---

I don't know why you keep trying to use this line. No one buys it. This goes to your integrity once again.

The answer, of course, is that I'm not a radical in the slightest. You're the only person to think otherwise.

quote:

---

I would just bet you never, ever bounce your radical anti-America leftist rhetoric off anyone you don't already know is just as far to the left as you are...I mean face to face...not here.

---

I don't have a radical message, and I'm not anti-American. Let us remember who demonizes fellow Americans on this site. That honor distinctly belongs to you, and you alone. There's no more anti-American sentiment than that.

And yes, I don't mind discussing politics with people of any political affiliation. Of course, I would have to be careful around you, because of your violent tendencies. Generally, the conservative ends up walking away, because they don't know what to do when evidence is presented to the contrary of their opinion. No conservative outside of you has ever called or implied that I was in any way a radical.

quote:

---

You have gone even further now in blaming the United States for the condition of the Iraqi water supply.

---

We can talk water til we're blue in the face. My position has not changed an iota. It's STILL on you to provide evidence to the contrary. The stuff was ordered, and what's more is that YOU KNOW IT. You still can't prove otherwise, because there is no contradictory information here.

Also, when are you going to prove to me the Republican agenda for the safety of Iraqis from the 1990's? You're not, because no proof exists.

quote:

---

Is there no limit to your twisting of facts and reality? Do you even live in the real world?

---

Irony irony...facts are facts. I don't have to twist them. ANYONE can look up what I've said and verify my arguments. What can't be done is verifying your opinion of the situation. It can't be verified that Republicans were concerned with suffering Iraqis during Oil For Food. It can't be verified that the US did NOT indefinitely delay unfrastructure supplies for Iraq. You can talk and talk and talk and it still won't change what the actual facts are.

quote:

---

So Acoustic, when US forces kill terrorists are they committing acts of violence?

---

Yes, obviously.

quote:

---

Are terrorists innocent of any wrong doing?

---

No, obviously.

quote:

---

Is beheading civilians, deliberately blowing up civilians and children acts of the innocent?

---

No, they are not, and the latter happens during any war. Also, regarding the context of this inquiry, it's worth mentioning the civilians and children who died under Oil For Food.

quote:

---

Or is it your opinion that those living in Iraq, the US, Britain and Europe are not innocent...by definition?

---

Well, if your livelihood is consumed with violence toward another nation, group or nationality, then I'd say you're not innocent.

quote:

---

Are people involved in rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq, by definition, not innocent?

---

Yes, of course they are.

quote:

---

Do you consider Ward Churchill a leftist radical? He seems to share your same opinions about the US. The people blown up at the WTC were "little Eichmann's" and we all know Eichmann was not innocent.

---

I'm not familiar with that person.

quote:

---

Just how far would you carry your allegation that the US repressed Iraqi citizens?

---

As far as I have. It's also worth mentioning that this was first brought up by me in relation to how terrorist are recruiting when I said Osama and his friends are pointing to the repression of Iraqi civilians by the Us (through the UN in the Oil for Food program).

quote:

---

Are we all, US citizens, then not guilty of repression of Iraqi citizens?

---

In a way yes. I didn't know what was being done by our government, and the effect it had on the lives and safety of Iraqis. Perhaps if the conservatives would have held a march or a telethon or made news with their outpouring of concern for Iraqis I could have been better informed.

quote:

---

You really need to get a grip..or at the very least correct your ignorance.

---

*Right!*

Oh shoot your post is so long I didn't address a part about the bible verse. It does actually apply. Much of the Bible's wisdom applies over a series of contexts. Is Canada not our neighbor? Is England not our neighbor? We are all neighbors.

quote:

---

Violence is deliberate acts of aggression against those...in the case you cited, neighbors... innocent of any wrong doing

---

Do we have to reach a point of killing innocents before we'll stop the war on terror? What is the end?

Also, is jeopradizing the safety of a nation full of innocent people not an act of aggression? I guess we were hoping for a civilian revolt, but maybe the Iraqis were too scared and too sick to take matters into their own hands.

quote:

---

ow Acoustic, I want you to tell me about all the wars...violence...between any of the main parties arrayed against each other since the Unconditional Surrender Documents were signed 60 years ago in 1945. And Acoustic, because you've made this a central theme in your arguments against fighting against terrorism and killing terrorists, I'm going to keep asking you this question until you answer it.

---

First of all, there isn't a question here, is there?

Secondly, let me quote myself:

quote:

---

violence without righteousness is fertile ground for eternal chaos.

---

In context, which you seem to love to flee, we were discussing whether or not the US ought to act saintly in all regards while pursuing terrorists. I said, "If you keep framing it as only kill kill kill, it's never going to get better, and the terrorists won't go away." You replied, "You can stuff that argument Acoustic because I'm not at all persuaded by arguments the US must be seen to be better than our enemies." You advocated violence without concern for global opinion of your actions. That mentality is right in line with the dictators and despots you claim to hate, and far from traditional US wartime philosophy.

posted July 26, 2005 12:54 AM            

quote:

---

If the US, was so concerned with the health and safety of Iraqis as you keep saying they/we were, why wouldn't they send the alternative water treatment methods?..Acoustic

---

quote:

---

We can talk water til we're blue in the face. My position has not changed an iota. It's STILL on you to provide evidence to the contrary. The stuff was ordered, and what's more is that YOU KNOW IT. You still can't prove otherwise, because there is no contradictory information here.

---

You've made a big deal here out of the idiotic notion that violence begets more violence. I asked you a simple question and you didn't provide an answer...because you cannot. The US and Japan were at war; the allies were at war with Germany and Italy. That ended 60 years ago Acoustic. Please list all the follow-on wars between the US and Japan...in the last 60 years. Please list all the follow-on wars between either the US and Germany, between the US and Italy, between Britain and Germany, between Britain and Italy, between Russia/Soviet Union and Germany, between France and Germany, between France and Italy, in the last 60 years. Now if you can't do that, then please desist with your nonsense that violence..war only begets violence..war. It's just utter bullsh*t as history shows...that is for anyone who knows anything about history.

All the little leftists twits you can line up with their nonsense doesn't overcome history and the facts Acoustic. Neither does trotting out a far left radical quoting bible scripture totally out of context.

Notice, you still can't find the gumption to denounce Saddam Hussein , the Butcher of Baghdad for the monster he is....but you have no problem denouncing the United States.

posted July 26, 2005 03:37 AM            

quote:

---

OK Acoustic almost everything you said in your last post is so much hot air but this, I'm going to ask you to prove...that the "stuff" was ordered. I was talking about an ionization or peroxide water purification system and that's what you suggested the US should have sent Saddam without any order from Saddam to do so.

---

You're right I can't prove that, but do you suppose that after not getting the items they ordered they might specify the intended use for the item? I would think that the use would have been specified even prior to the US holding anything up. Does it somehow exonerate the US from the US action of preventing shipment of supplies necessary for humanitarian relief? These are YOUR people, Jwhop. Shouldn't we have done something?

See how I did that? You asked me to answer a question, and I replied right away. I didn't try to waffle out, split hairs, or change the subject. When are you going to start offering the same courtesy?

I've asked you to demonstrate the great Republican concern for the welfare of Iraqis prior to this war, and you've consistently ignored me? Does your non-answer mean that the humanitarian justification for the war is BS?

I also asked you to disprove that the US and UK indefinitely delayed shipment of supplies which would have benefitted the health and welfare of Iraqis. No word there, either.

quote:

---

We know for certain that chlorine was banned by the UN Security Council but those two alternative systems were available. Show me here where Saddam ever ordered ionization or peroxide water purification systems...which you say were refused.

---

Second verse, same as the first.

quote:

---

You've made a big deal here out of the idiotic notion that violence begets more violence. I asked you a simple question and you didn't provide an answer...because you cannot. The US and Japan were at war; the allies were at war with Germany and Italy. That ended 60 years ago Acoustic. Please list all the follow-on wars between the US and Japan...in the last 60 years. Please list all the follow-on wars between either the US and Germany, between the US and Italy, between Britain and Germany, between Britain and Italy, between Russia/Soviet Union and Germany, between France and Germany, between France and Italy, in the last 60 years. Now if you can't do that, then please desist with your nonsense that violence..war only begets violence..war. It's just utter bullsh*t as history shows...that is for anyone who knows anything about history.

---

I DID in fact answer that. I answered by reitterating that violence without righteousness, etc.

Most people would understand what I said. What's wrong? Why don't you see it?

What history shows is that mostly the country that does the most good and shows the most faith wins. Occasionally that doesn't work, like in Vietnam, but we still won, because we were and are still a better nation in all areas.

quote:

---

Neither does trotting out a far left radical quoting bible scripture totally out of context.

---

I don't really know what this means. Are you saying I quoted a person quoting the bible out of context? Doesn't matter I suppose. I'm sure it's akin to much of your nonsense.

Here's some more Sunday school for you:

quote:

---

9 O righteous God,
who searches minds and hearts,
bring to an end the violence of the wicked
and make the righteous secure. -Psalm 7:9

---

quote:

---

8 The way of the guilty is devious,
but the conduct of the innocent is upright. -Proverbs 21:8

---

quote:

---

11 The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life,
but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked.

12 Hatred stirs up dissension,
but love covers over all wrongs.
- Proverbs 10:11-12

---

quote:

---

Notice, you still can't find the gumption to denounce Saddam Hussein , the Butcher of Baghdad for the monster he is....but you have no problem denouncing the United States.

---

Everyone knows what I stand for here. You're the only one who could even conceive of my condoning Saddam's actions.

quote:

---

I have no problem with you being a radical leftist Acoustic. I do have a problem with you attempting to fly under the radar flying a false flag of American patriotism when you are a radical anti-America leftist.

---

posted March 14, 2006 04:56 PM              

When I saw this topic, "They All Sound Alike", I thought the "They" referred to jwhop's posts...

Oops.

------------------
Can you imagine a world in which each person understood that his only responsibility was to give and receive love?

posted March 14, 2006 06:29 PM            

The situation is different in Iraq, and it's different in the war on terror. I don't know how you could possibly think that it's not a gang-like atmosphere there. It's not a situation where things are going to suddenly get better and everything will be good again. It's nothing like that at all. I'll leave you to your dream, though, that things will magically just get better as long as we continue the violence.

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

Speaking of waiting, I'm still waiting for evidence of the humanitarian movement amongst Republicans to save the Iraqis and oust Saddam. I'm still waiting for you to understand that Pew chart that you think supports the claim that 80% of people don't believe the NYT is credible.

posted March 14, 2006 07:52 PM            

Yet, when given a chance to back that up with factual information about wars since 1945 between the various parties to the Second World War, you don't.

Instead you talk about economic war...which is the kind of wars democratic governments wage against each other...which was my point all along and the reason for establishing democratic governments in the place of dictatorships.

Economic war, trade relationships arrived at through negotiation and mutual interests instead of war out of the barrel of guns.

The US and Russia/Soviet Union were allies in the Second World War acoustic. If you believe the US and Soviet Union were ever in a shooting war against each other, post the information here.

posted March 14, 2006 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

The US and Russia/Soviet Union were allies in the Second World War acoustic. If you believe the US and Soviet Union were ever in a shooting war against each other, post the information here.

---

posted March 14, 2006 08:05 PM            

BTW, the definition of MOST is...a majority of, the greatest number of, i.e., any amount in excess of 50% of...anything. I know you have a hard time conceptualizing acoustic but if I keep repeating it, perhaps you'll pick it up.

On the flip side of that acoustic...any amount of anything which is not in excess of 50% in NOT MOST.