Cynical Nation

What speech? I was tuned in to a "Girls Gone Wild" infomercial on channel 392.

I think if there’s one thing you can say about GWB it’s that he’s consistent, for good or bad.

It’s become a cliché, and the source of so many jokes but “stay the course” is what he’s all about. He does not change no matter what. He admitted that we were wrong and there were no WMD’s, that the reasons we went to war in Iraq turned out to be wrong. Then when asked if he’d do the same thing today knowing what he knows and he answered yes.

He doesn’t seem to care if events change, we learn more, etc., he just does what he wants to and continues doing what he wants to.

It’s a criticism leveled against him in numerous accounts, some from former insiders such as Paul O’Neill. As time moves on it’s pretty clear that this is one of his character traits. Stay the course.

He doesn’t care what the American people seem to be calling for, he doesn’t care what the generals advise is the best course, he doesn’t care what revised intelligence reports say, he doesn’t care about the legality of wiretapping, etc. etc. He just keeps doing what he wants.

Frustration. It's a word I've come to know very well with this POTUS.

Claiming there was no reason to invade Iraq is revisionist foolishness.

Iraq wasn't invaded on the supposition that WMDs were hidden there!

Iraq itself preserved the perception that it had WMDs. Even Saddam's Generals all thought they had stockpiles of WMDs which could be used to repel any invasion, as reported in the NY Times (I know, I know, there's long been a pesky credibility problem there).

Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with UN Weapons inspections and because of that, 1441 was signed onto by the UNSC.

France had promised both Britain and the U.S. that "No invasion would be necessary, for when we show a united front, Saddam will back down," before, of course, feigning mock outrage over "the bellicose Americans and British," when we threatened to back 1441 ourselves.

Ultimately Hussein's regime failed to comply with 1441, as they had with twelve previous UN Resolutions, so in March of 2003 Saddam's Iraq was invaded, the Iraqi Army was defeated within three weeks, Saddam deposed and was caught in December of that year.

It can certainly be argued that the idea of re-building, a strong democratic and pro-Western Iraq as a beach-head against other "bad actors" in the region was over-reaching on America's part.

I'd agree with that.

I believe we should've repartitioned Iraq at the close of 2003 and moved on.

The current administration embarked on a far more ambitious project and between the restrictive rules of engagement that straightjacket America's soldiers and the emphasis on infrastructure repair, as opposed to crushing the insurgency, it seems the post-Saddam phase of Iraq has been badly mishandled.

That seems to prove what I've always believed, the U.S. Military is GREAT at fighting wars, killing enemies and wrecking shit, but really, really bad at "peace-keeping" and "nation-building."

Maybe we should transfer the tasks of peace-keeping and nation-building to the Peace Corps were they seem to belong and use our Military for what it does best, in other words we shouldn't use a hammer to try and screw in a light bulb.

I think most of the "school painting" (actually, the videos I've seen show pretty significant rehab and even construction) is being done off-hours by soldiers and marines trying to establish person-to-person relationships with the communities they patrol. I think that should be allowed to continue.

If this "surge" and a new plan for securing Baghdad can provide some spine for the 30% or so of Iraqi security forces who seem to be capable of accomplishing their responsibilities, it might just be possible to expand the secure perimeter around the Green Zone out to include most of Baghdad.

That would bring the majority of the so-called insurgency (really just a murder spree by competing fascists) under the hammer of government forces and possibly provide enough of a foot hold for the good guys to regain the initiative.

As the President correctly pointed out: The vast majority of the violence is in the area immediately surrounding Baghdad, which happens to encompass almost half of the population. This isn't a surprise; The Shi'a and Sunnis both see control of the city as the key to controlling the whole country.

By the end of March, a fourth province, Al Basrah (the city of Basrah and suburbs) will have been returned to Iraqi control, and the security record so far of provinces under Iraqi control has been pretty good -- albeit those provinces weren't problematic in the first place -- so it is obviously possible for the Maliki government to maintain security under the right circumstances.

Wasit, Maysan, Al-Qadisiyyah and possibly Karbala, will probably be ready for hand over by late summer. As real estate is turned over to the Iraqis, U.S. formations can concentrate more force on the problem provinces: Baghdad, Diyala, Salah ad Din, and eastern Al Anbar

At the very least it would force the international media to travel out to the hinterlands to find car-bomb explosions. That, in itself, would be a major blow to the other side.

JMK: "I believe we should've repartitioned Iraq at the close of 2003 and moved on."

The problem with that scenario is that the Sunnis would have never allowed themselves to be excluded from the oil wealth of the Northeast (Kurdistan) and Southeast (Shi'a territory), and Turkey has made it clear they will not stand for an independant Kurdistan. Once the U.S. was out of the country we would have seen Turkey marching south and the Sunnis infiltrating east.

A question occured to me while watching the speech.

Bush talked ominously about the threat of al Qaeda as well as Iran if we fail.

Given that al Qaeda is Sunni while Iran is Shi'a, and given the hatred we have seen between the two, doesn't it seem rather illogical to presume that both sides would flourish in a deserted Iraq?

One will certainly kill the other, wouldn't you think?

Hearts and minds, folks. I know it sounds like a cliche, but when Iraqis see who is really doing good and who is just trying to take power, they are more likely to take sides and drop a dime on the bad guys.

JMK – “Claiming there was no reason to invade Iraq is revisionist foolishness.”

No, Revisionist foolishness is a better description for your next sentence (besides if you want to take issue with what I posted then take issue with what I posted. I posted “that the reasons we went to war in Iraq turned out to be wrong.” That is not the same as saying there was no reason. But on to the revisionist foolishness:

JMK – “Iraq wasn't invaded on the supposition that WMDs were hidden there!”

Really? Is this the part where you go on a 10 page rant about UN resolutions and ignore all the talk of WMD’s mushroom clouds, chemical and biological weapons factories, etc…?

JMK – “Iraq itself preserved the perception that it had WMDs. Even Saddam's Generals all thought they had stockpiles of WMDs which could be used to repel any invasion, as reported in the NY Times (I know, I know, there's long been a pesky credibility problem there).”

And…so…what? My point was that this perception was wrong and that the president has said that even today knowing it was wrong he’d have still done the same thing. You’re missing the point…missing intentionally? I don’t know, perhaps.

JMK – “Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with UN Weapons inspections and because of that, 1441 was signed onto by the UNSC.”

I knew it was coming.

JMK – “France had promised both Britain and the U.S. that "No invasion would be necessary, for when we show a united front, Saddam will back down," before, of course, feigning mock outrage over "the bellicose Americans and British," when we threatened to back 1441 ourselves.
Ultimately Hussein's regime failed to comply with 1441, as they had with twelve previous UN Resolutions, so in March of 2003 Saddam's Iraq was invaded, the Iraqi Army was defeated within three weeks, Saddam deposed and was caught in December of that year.”

I’m not going to bother posting links anymore because it’s clear you don’t care, your opinion is set like a slab of granite. Instead I would direct anyone who still buys the UN resolutions argument to take the time to research for themselves the number and identity of nations that violate UN resolutions. You might be surprised. Then if you have a bone of intellectual honesty you have to ask yourself why is it an argument for Iraq and not the rest?

JMK – “It can certainly be argued that the idea of re-building, a strong democratic and pro-Western Iraq as a beach-head against other "bad actors" in the region was over-reaching on America's part.
I'd agree with that.”

I’d agree with that as well.

JMK – “I believe we should've repartitioned Iraq at the close of 2003 and moved on.”

I don’t agree with that. We’d have wound up with the same situation in Iraq, the only difference is we’d not be there. If it’s true that your concern is US interests and not the welfare of the average Iraqui (is that a fair assumption?) Then we should have left Saddam in place as he was secular and did not provide a haven for terrorists like we have in Iraq today. All in all it would have been safer (and cheaper)to continue the no-fly zones and wait for Iraq to self-destruct.

JMK – “The current administration embarked on a far more ambitious project and between the restrictive rules of engagement that straightjacket America's soldiers and the emphasis on infrastructure repair, as opposed to crushing the insurgency, it seems the post-Saddam phase of Iraq has been badly mishandled.
That seems to prove what I've always believed, the U.S. Military is GREAT at fighting wars, killing enemies and wrecking shit, but really, really bad at "peace-keeping" and "nation-building."
Maybe we should transfer the tasks of peace-keeping and nation-building to the Peace Corps were they seem to belong and use our Military for what it does best, in other words we shouldn't use a hammer to try and screw in a light bulb. “

And those three paragraphs are dead on.

Bush's position makes sense, while the idea that because there were no WMDs changes anything clearly doesn't.

It's like this, 1441 was needed, whether there were actually WMDs or not. We can agree on that, RIGHT?

Saddam refused to cooperate with the weapons inspectors and violated 1441 as he'd done with twelve previous UN Resolutions.

Because of that violation of 1441 the invasion was both right and necessary.

America and Britain called it a "last chance Resolution" and failing to enforce it would've permanently lost them face, leaving both nations eviscerated on the world stage. So eviscerated that it would've been foolish for either of them to ever againseek to intervene in ANY world events no matter how atrocious.

No, once 1441 was rightfully declared a "last chance Resolution," neither America, nor Britain could back down from that stance.

My understanding of the UN is that either the U.S. OR Britain (or ANY Security Council member) COULD'VE made any given Resolution a "last chance Resolution" and chose to enforce that even without the support of the rest of the UNSC.

Pretty sure I'm right about that and if NOT, then the UN is an empty vessel and holds no weight at all.

Look, it stands to reason, if Third World nations can ignore UN Resolutions, member states can also unilaterally enforce same. It was done in the Balkans!

1441 was the ONLY REASON Iraq was invaded.

The charges that Iraq "could still have stockpiles of WMDs," and that "Saddam's regime was looking to rebuild WMD programs" were ancillary charges used to sell an invasion that because of 1441 was a "done deal."

If someone, anyone could show that 1441 was NOT the primary rationale for the invasion of Iraq, then I would change 180 degrees and join the French stance, which is actually quite nunanced.

The French view is, to the best of my interpretation; "Yes, it's better that the West surrender peacefully and accept its dhimmi status and be subjected to Sharia Law. Fighting this overwhelming global force is futile and will only result in a massive and unnecssary loss of life on both sides. We are French (Westerners), we can adapt to Sharia Law."

Short of the repartitioning then we needed and still NEED to secure Iraq.

No reasonable person can doubt we'll ultimately have to fight it out (militarily) with Syria, Iran and others (THAT is the WoT) and we'll need a beach-head in that region in order to do that.

Kuwait just isn't a big enough beach-head.

I think there are still a fair number of people who grossly underestimate the current enemy and think we might even be able to negotiate our way out of all this.

That's a frightfully naive view.

There's nothing in negotiation for us.

We're not merely fighting to keep the jihadists pinned down over there, unable to fully regroup, and we're not even merely fighting to keep Mideast oil flowing at market prices (though that's a big part of this and a noble, necessary effort), BUT we're fighting for GLOBALIZATION - we are (America) is the engine of globalization and frankly American industry NEEDS globalization to succeeed.

Forcing the exportation of our admittedly decadent, consumerist culture to the rest of the world, even to parts of it that violently oppose it is absolutely necessary and it's worth fighting for.

It's not only about "more profits for big business," it's about more prosperity for all Americans - we need globalization to continue unabated and to succeed.

JMK - "1441 was the ONLY REASON Iraq was invaded."

NO, 1441 is the reason cited to lend validity, however the UN as a body chose not to enforce it, we decided to enforce it ourselves. That’s like a State prosecutor pursuing federal charges, that have been dismissed by a federal court.

However it’s obvious to anyone that the american public was sold this war on fear mongering over WMD’s and threats of terrorism. Dick Cheney was not all over the Sunday morning news shows discussing resolution 1441, he was discussing mushroom clouds. Conoleeza Rice was not discussing resolution 1441 she was discussing Iraqui gliders spraying anthrax over american cities.
Colen Powell did discuss the resolution at the UN, however he tried to recreate the Cuban Missle Crisis scenario with his photos of “mobile Iraqui chemical labs” (which of course were nothing of the kind).

The fact is that they used the public distress and fear in the wake of 9-11 to create support for a war that never would have had public support if 9-11 never happened. You can choose to act like that’s not the case, but it obviously is the case, ad the more you deny it the more ridiculous you sound.

You never did address why violating a UN resolution is a case for invasion with Iraq when so many other nations violate UN resolutions as well: UN Resolution Violations .

I know you’re aware of these violations – when do the bombs drop on Israel?

"NO, 1441 is the reason cited to lend validity, however the UN as a body chose not to enforce it, we decided to enforce it ourselves. That’s like a State prosecutor pursuing federal charges, that have been dismissed by a federal court." (GZ)
"...the american public was sold this war on fear mongering over WMD’s and threats of terrorism."

Now that parts right!

The spectre of WMDs was used to sell an unconcerned and inattentive people this war, BUT 1441 was the actual trigger.

Our rightful stance on 1441 (as a "last chance Resolution") necessitated our backing that talk up.

I answered your last question quite clearly - ANY member nation can enforce ANY Resolution it so chooses...so long as it's got the force to do so.

We've thumbed our nose at UN restraint TWICE - once in Kosovo and once in Iraq.

The problem is that MOST Americans don't understand either the Balkans or Iraq.

In tha Balkans, even NATO urged restraint, but the Clinton administration insisted that the bombing begine before China began chairing the UNSC.

We sided with the Muslims in Kosovo, mostly Albanian immigrants, who'd initiated the genocide in that region by killing some 3000 Christian Serbs.

We and NATO had matters that over-rode morality (simple "right & wrong") and America did what was in its own best interests - which it should always do.

Now there are those cynics out there saying things like, "Many Americans on the Left swallowed hard over Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, but rejected out of hand any broader war against Islamo-fascism, or Islamo-anything, as racist parochialism. So where-ever the next anti-Islamic war would be, Syria, Iran, etc, they were poised to come out swinging."

As IF!!!

Now, I doubt anyone here would sign onto that, "There' was no broader war against Islamo-fascism" crap, because I'm banking on no one being able to defend such a position.

No one's gonna tell me that Syria ISN'T (and even then wasn't) a rightful target.

No one's gonna say that Iran isn't nor wasn't a rightful target either...not on my watch.

We could've invaded EITHER Iran, Iraq or Syria after Afghanistan and they would've been equally justified...hell, maybe we should've launched an assault on all three at once.

The absurd idea that "our only rightful focus is al Qaeda," is utter nonsense!

In truth al Qaeda is only a tiny portion of the Islamo-fascist menace alligned against us. Al Qaeda is the Sunni arm of the Islamo-fascist front, while Hezbollah is the Shiite arm of the Islamo-fascist front.

While it's true that al Qaeda (the Sunnis) were behind 9/11/01, the Shiites (Hezbollah) was behind the Marine Corps barracks bombing in Lebanon, among other attacks.

OBL was twice exiled from Saudi Arabia (the second time his assets there were frozen) and after staying in the Sudan and then Afghanistan.

The Sunni Baathist (Hussein) government in Iraq shared a common enemy (the Kurds) with the al Qaeda (Sunni) Ansar al-Islam camps in northern Iraq and cooperated in carrying out that fight.

I've always strongly disagred with what I see as the inane idea that "OBL is our only rightful focus in this WoT." I believe that view is fatally short-sighted.

JMK - The UN has no legal authority over member nations. The day it gets such an authority is the day I declare my self a "state sovereign" - a nation onto myself.

You try that one and see how far it gets you. If the UN truly has no legal authority then what right does it have to impose a resolution? How can you use it’s resolutions as a basis for sanctions, invasion, etc?
I realize the UN is a bunch of contradicitions, it’s lack of power over powerful members being one example. However if you are going tom stand behind it as validation then you have to keep logically consistent. If you remain consistent then you have to realize that if the UN as a body decides to react to it’s resolution one way, a member state cannot go another way. It’s fine as far as you’re concerned because the US decided togo against a UN decision, I’m sure you’d see it differently if it was any other nation in opposition to our interests. And I’m not saying I’d disagree with you there, I am saying however that it is the reason you have to remain consistent.

JMK - There are no nations subject to "UN law," or "UN courts."

Except apparently Iraq?

JMK - That incursion into the Balkans was as "unprovoked" and "UN-opposed" as was Iraq. To boot, we joined in on the morally wrong side in that fight, as the Albanian Muslims had begun the genocide by killing 3,000 Christian Serbs in Kosovo.

Oh and except apparently the Balkans.

JMK - Our rightful stance on 1441 (as a "last chance Resolution") necessitated our backing that talk up.
I answered your last question quite clearly - ANY member nation can enforce ANY Resolution it so chooses...so long as it's got the force to do so.

Is that part of the JMK charter? You can say that all you want but it doesn’t make it true. Certainly we can do what we want since we have the power, but that doesn’t mean it’s endorsed by the UN. Why do you keep acting as if it’s anything different? You clearly don’t care about the UN or it’s “powers” so why not just be honest and stop hiding behind a resolution from what you see as an ineffective and unnecessary body.

JMK - No one's gonna tell me that Syria ISN'T (and even then wasn't) a rightful target.
No one's gonna say that Iran isn't nor wasn't a rightful target either...not on my watch.
We could've invaded EITHER Iran, Iraq or Syria after Afghanistan and they would've been equally justified...hell, maybe we should've launched an assault on all three at once.

Keep going you’re on a roll….why don’t we attack the entire world while we’re at it. Where are we going to get the army for this? Or are you planning to attack them all on your own?

JMK - I've always strongly disagred with what I see as the inane idea that "OBL is our only rightful focus in this WoT." I believe that view is fatally short-sighted.

I don’t think anyone’s said that – what they have said is that not every arab nation is comprised of terrorists.

The UN has no over-riding legal authority over individual countries.

That's why any member state can enforce any given Resolution.
"JMK - There are no nations subject to "UN law," or "UN courts."" (JMK)

"Except apparently Iraq?" GZ)
"JMK - That incursion into the Balkans was as "unprovoked" and "UN-opposed" as was Iraq. To boot, we joined in on the morally wrong side in that fight, as the Albanian Muslims had begun the genocide by killing 3,000 Christian Serbs in Kosovo." (JMK)
"Oh and except apparently the Balkans." (GZ)
"Keep going you’re on a roll….why don’t we attack the entire world while we’re at it." (GZ)
"I don’t think anyone’s said that – what they have said is that not every arab nation is comprised of terrorists." (GZ)
(GZ)


Another non-sequitor, as I never implied that. The statement, "We are at war with Sharia-based Islam," is a very nuanced one.

Sharia Law ALL of Sharia Law sees ALL non-Muslims as "dhimmis" (third class citizens, "cattle" actually) and believe that conversion by the sword is not only right & just, but necessary.

That being said, the UAE, Kuwait, Qutar are solid allies in the WoT.

Saudi Arabia & Pakistan are less reliable, even reluctant allies, but allies, at least at this point, none-the-less.

JMK - Iraq wasn't made "subject to the UN," but to the Anglo-American alliance.

Dude, I have to hand it to you, NOTHING stops you. The “Anglo-American Alliance”? Sounds impressive I’ll give you that, but it means nothing. At least if you’d said NATO then you’d be talking about something that has real substance and isn’t just an impressive sounding fiction.

JMK - Although the UNSC agreed that 1441 was "a last chance Resolution," but it was England & America that decided to enforce that when a few countries with illicit deals to protect (France, Germany & Russia) refused to enforce it.

You can continue to say this over and over again however even if you say it a thousand times using slightly different wording you can’t get around the fact that it’s a UN resolution, unless the fictitious Anglo-American Alliance is also empowered to create fictiotious resolutions of their own over there in Bizarro World.

JMK - Again, NOT the UN, in that case the U.S. and NATO over UN objections and even over NATO reservations.

I’ll give you props for referencing NATO which at least exists. However you still have the same issue, it’s a UN resolution, not a NATO resolution, not a US resolution, etc.

JMK - Bolton has the right view. The only purpose the UN can possibly serve from a U.S. standpoint is to verify (rubber-stamp) the things we need to get done.

Whether or not that’s right, the fact is that they didn’t rubber stamp our actions in Iraq, therefore you cannot use them as validation, even as meaningless as that validation would have been according to your own assertions.

JMK - There are no people, so far as I know, with any expertise, who've made the case that Iran, Iraq and Syria (yes even pre-2001) were America's enemies and supporter's (sponsors, harborers, etc) of international terrorism.

Can you at least try to be consistent? YOU are the one who said this “We could've invaded EITHER Iran, Iraq or Syria after Afghanistan and they would've been equally justified...hell, maybe we should've launched an assault on all three at once.” Not me.

I’m confused are you trying to prove that you have no expertise, or are you just showing us that you have none? Or are you just showing us how inconsistent you are? Either we would have been justified in invading them or not, that’s a pretty large disparity …care to explain your “logic”?

JMK - Another non-sequitor, as I never implied that. The statement, "We are at war with Sharia-based Islam," is a very nuanced one.

It should be nuanced however you’ve gone across the spectrum in your discussions to this point in multiple threads across multiple websites. In one memorable case you argued for something like 100 million bullets to kill 100 million of these Sharia-based Islamic terrorists, then in other threads you are somewhat more rationale about it. Contradictions, much like the one I cited above.

As to dhimmis it’s essentially the same way Christians view pagans. Thus the need to convert them all through missionaries. Both are somewhat archaic, although I realize you’ll argue that Islam as practiced is somewhat archaic. I think it’s a nother case of you not really understanding the nuance behind terms, much as you didn’t understand debt vs. deficit. Another thread you abandoned after I caught you with your foot in your mouth.

“Iraq wasn't made "subject to the UN," but to the Anglo-American alliance.” (JMK)
“Dude, I have to hand it to you, NOTHING stops you. The “Anglo-American Alliance”? Sounds impressive I’ll give you that, but it means nothing. At least if you’d said NATO then you’d be talking about something that has real substance and isn’t just an impressive sounding fiction.” (GZ)
I’ll let my friend “Shorty-G" take this one, since we’re simpatico on this;

Nah, nah MAN NAH-AH! I mean I can baleev in America, I evn baleev in Englin and Euaope and shit, but I don’t baleev in no UN or NATO or no stufff like dat. The UN's bout as reel as Santa Clause G!

America had evy damn write to shock dat monkey and “increas the peace” by bum-rushing dem pseudo-bad boyz up in Iraq.

Dey jist needed to git the Shiite kicked outta dem!

Yo, yo YO! Props to JMK for lettin me loose in his name.

I lent ya some flava yo! - Shorty-G
(Uhhh, yeah, thanks. I think I pretty much agree. (JMK)
“Although the UNSC agreed that 1441 was "a last chance Resolution," but it was England & America that decided to enforce that when a few countries with illicit deals to protect (France, Germany & Russia) refused to enforce it.” (JMK)
“You can continue to say this over and over again however even if you say it a thousand times using slightly different wording you can’t get around the fact that it’s a UN resolution, unless the fictitious Anglo-American Alliance is also empowered to create fictiotious resolutions of their own over there in Bizarro World.” (GZ)
America went to the UN and the UNSC signed onto 1441 as a “Last Chance Resolution,” (that’s was said to be in the wording of that Resolution), so it doesn’t matter that they balked at enforcing it, their signing onto that initial wording gave America the right (even in UN parlance) to enforce it.

Of course, in the real world America doesn’t need UN permission to do anything.

Quite the reverse, the UN (and I believe this is in its charter) needs U.S. approval to do things America disagrees with.

I may be wrong on that, but that sure does appear to be how it works.
“Again, NOT the UN, in that case the U.S. and NATO over UN objections and even over NATO reservations.” (JMK)
“I’ll give you props for referencing NATO which at least exists. However you still have the same issue, it’s a UN resolution, not a NATO resolution, not a US resolution, etc.” (GZ)
“K-rist!!

Again, as Shorty-G so ineloquently put it (sorry Shorty-G, it’s true) the UN & NATO are “fictitious.” It’s America and England and British Samoa that are REAL entities. Countries really EXIST, these imaginary unions of various (non-alligned) nations do not...at least, not really.

That’s the first thing we have to agree on. There’s no possible common ground absent that.

“The UN, NATO, etc are all fictions we use to lend credence to basically making other people do the things we want them to do, even when they don’t want to do them.”
“Bolton has the right view. The only purpose the UN can possibly serve from a U.S. standpoint is to verify (rubber-stamp) the things we need to get done.” (JMK)
“There are no people, so far as I know, with any expertise, who've made the case that Iran, Iraq and Syria (yes even pre-2001) were America's enemies and supporter's (sponsors, harborers, etc) of international terrorism.” (JMK)
“Can you at least try to be consistent? YOU are the one who said this “We could've invaded EITHER Iran, Iraq or Syria after Afghanistan and they would've been equally justified...hell, maybe we should've launched an assault on all three at once.” Not me.”

I’m confused are you trying to prove that you have no expertise, or are you just showing us that you have none? Or are you just showing us how inconsistent you are? Either we would have been justified in invading them or not, that’s a pretty large disparity …care to explain your “logic”?
“What in the hell are you talking about???

What could possibly be more clear than the statement, “There are no people, so far as I know, with any expertise, who've made the case that Iran, Iraq and Syria (yes even pre-2001) were NOT America's enemies and supporter's (sponsors, harborers, etc) of international terrorism.” Every terror expert in existence (and I’ve gone to dozens of conferences at taxpayer expense) and not a one has challenged the Bush “Axis of Evil (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, N Korea).

If you are now claiming that Iran and Syria weren’t serious (deadly serious) enemies of the United States pre-9/11, I’d like to see what your basing that on.

There’s absolutely no backing for that viewpoint so far as I can tell and I’ve looked for it.

We’ve got an awful loooong road ahead because there’s no diplomatic solution possible with any of those. Not that any American should want one. This clash of cultures can only be solved one way.

We’ve just recently taken the gloves off with Iran and Syria within Iraq and that’s pretty much ended any possibility of diplomacy there.
As to dhimmis it’s essentially the same way Christians view pagans. Thus the need to convert them all through missionaries. Both are somewhat archaic, although I realize you’ll argue that Islam as practiced is somewhat archaic. I think it’s a nother case of you not really understanding the nuance behind terms, much as you didn’t understand debt vs. deficit. Another thread you abandoned after I caught you with your foot in your mouth.” (GZ)
Not exactly “essentially the same as,” unless by “essentially the same as,” you mean that there is no comparable concept to “dhimmitude” within either Christianity or Judaism, for if it existed in Christianity, it would’ve had to originate in Judaism, as Christianity is founded upon Judaism, as Christ WAS the Martin Luther of Judaism.

Nowhere and at no time did Christians or Jews require members of other religions to put wear insignias over their shops that would designate that status, nor allow (Christians or Jews) to enslave or slaughter those with “dhimmi” status.

Here’s a good place to learn more about dhimmitude;

http://www.dhimmi.com/dhimmi_overview.htm

JMK - I’ll let my friend “Shorty-G" take this one, since we’re simpatico on this;
Nah, nah MAN NAH-AH! I mean I can baleev in America, I evn baleev in Englin and Euaope and shit, but I don’t baleev in no UN or NATO or no stufff like dat. The UN's bout as reel as Santa Clause G!
America had evy damn write to shock dat monkey and “increas the peace” by bum-rushing dem pseudo-bad boyz up in Iraq.
Dey jist needed to git the Shiite kicked outta dem!
Yo, yo YO! Props to JMK for lettin me loose in his name.
I lent ya some flava yo! - Shorty-G

OK…you feeling ok? Not only didn’t that address the point at all (which again was that The “Anglo-American Alliance” is nothing more than an impressive sounding fiction created by you.) but you’ve authored a bad rip-off of Ali G as well. I don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone that you don’t recognize the UN, you said as much earlier in this thread. That doesn’t mean you can replace it with your own fiction.

JMK - America went to the UN and the UNSC signed onto 1441 as a “Last Chance Resolution,” (that’s was said to be in the wording of that Resolution), so it doesn’t matter that they balked at enforcing it, their signing onto that initial wording gave America the right (even in UN parlance) to enforce it.

Maybe in Bizarro World, however in the real world it takes more than your assertion to make something true. It’s common knowledge that the US and the UK, along with our vast alliance of small island nations, went to war in Iraq in opposition to the wishes of the UN. So clearly if the UN is opposed to an action then no member state is sanctioned (even in UN parlance) whatsoever.

No one is saying we are beholden to the UN for permission to do anything, and I’m not saying we ever should be; however it’s one thing to say we are under no obligation to get an endorsement from the UN for our actions, it’s another thing to continuously try to prove that we somehow do have an endorsement playing semantic games. Why do you feel the need to get that endorsement? Why do you care? Why is it so important that our actions in Iraq are tacitly endorsed by an organization that you view as an ineffective archaic puppet; a failed experiment that never should have occurred?

It’s fascinating to me that you detest the UN so much, while at the same time it seems critical to you that they endorse our actions. Fascinating.

JMK - Of course, in the real world America doesn’t need UN permission to do anything.
Quite the reverse, the UN (and I believe this is in its charter) needs U.S. approval to do things America disagrees with.
I may be wrong on that, but that sure does appear to be how it works.

See and there you go and point out exactly what I said about your feelings towards the UN. So why do you care so much? I don’t know for a fact but I don’t believe it’s in the UN charter that they need America’s approval to do something we’re opposed to. That might be the reality of the politics behind the scenes, but I don’t believe it’s written into the charter. I think our influence on paper is through our permanent seat on the Security Council.

JMK - “K-rist!!
Again, as Shorty-G so ineloquently put it (sorry Shorty-G, it’s true) the UN & NATO are “fictitious.” It’s America and England and British Samoa that are REAL entities. Countries really EXIST, these imaginary unions of various (non-alligned) nations do not...at least, not really.

That’s correct and it’s also correct that there is no Anglo-American Alliance - as an official body that enacts laws or passes resolutions. The way it works is that one nation doesn’t impose legislation on another. Sure there are other ways to exert control – through trade, threat of military action, turning other economic screws, we all understand how things REALLY work, however I’m sure you’d agree there’s two levels to the world. The polished shiny clean front, and the inner dirtier grittier reality where things get done. In many ways the world on the front is a facade, but we like to believe in that façade.

So we create bodies like the UN that are empowered by member nations to make rulings that effect all of them, that’s part of signing the UN charter. Of course we all know that behind the scenes if an influencial nation wants something done they will exert pressure to get what they want.

The point is that as ineffective as something like the UN can be, it is empowered to pass the equivalent of “laws” or “resolutions” because on paper to some extent member nations have ceded their sovereign status to a degree, in deference to this international body. Of course we all know how much that ceding is really worth.

Now in the case of an individual nation such as the US, UK, Samoa, etc. or even an alliance of two nations, you cannot impose sanctions, or create laws that are binding on another sovereign nation. You can go to war and impose your will, or you can go to war economically by imposing tariffs, limiting trade, etc.

See where you’re wrong on this yet?

JMK - That’s the first thing we have to agree on. There’s no possible common ground absent that.
“The UN, NATO, etc are all fictions we use to lend credence to basically making other people do the things we want them to do, even when they don’t want to do them.”

And here you show that you understand the concepts – as I knew you did. However you must understand what I’m saying. Ineffective or not only a recognized international organization like the UN can impose resolutions, etc. They may not mean anything or be really effective, but that’s not the point. I’d agree that the weight of nations like the US and Britain is a lot more effective than a UN resolution, however that doesn’t mean there’s a legal basis for either nation to start imposing sanctions on an international basis – unless you call a spade a spade and define it as war.

JMK - “What in the hell are you talking about???
What could possibly be more clear than the statement, “There are no people, so far as I know, with any expertise, who've made the case that Iran, Iraq and Syria (yes even pre-2001) were NOT America's enemies and supporter's (sponsors, harborers, etc) of international terrorism.” Every terror expert in existence (and I’ve gone to dozens of conferences at taxpayer expense) and not a one has challenged the Bush “Axis of Evil (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, N Korea).

What in the hell I’m talking about is the statement you made earlier:
“We could've invaded EITHER Iran, Iraq or Syria after Afghanistan and they would've been equally justified...hell, maybe we should've launched an assault on all three at once.”

And this statement you made(before you decided to editorialize and add NOT):
“There are no people, so far as I know, with any expertise, who've made the case that Iran, Iraq and Syria (yes even pre-2001) were America's enemies and supporter's (sponsors, harborers, etc) of international terrorism.”

Go ahead and look back to your original posting, there is no NOT, and you’re not able to edit your comments here so you can’t change it. If you meant to say NOT then you’re consistent. But without the NOT you were saying two diametrically opposed things.

For the record I wasn’t questioning the “Axis of Evil”, I was pointing out your inconsistency.

JMK - If you are now claiming that Iran and Syria weren’t serious (deadly serious) enemies of the United States pre-9/11, I’d like to see what your basing that on.

No as mentioned I was pointing out your inconsistent position, which you seem to have explained. My advice, proof-read your work, the absence of that NOT changed your entire meaning.

JMK - Not exactly “essentially the same as,” unless by “essentially the same as,” you mean that there is no comparable concept to “dhimmitude” within either Christianity or Judaism, for if it existed in Christianity, it would’ve had to originate in Judaism, as Christianity is founded upon Judaism, as Christ WAS the Martin Luther of Judaism.

Well not really, does the concept of the trinity arise within Judaism? Christ is more than just the Martin Luther of Judaism, in fact we’re not sure what Judaism was like in his time. Because around the time of his death there were a great many jews rising against Rome, so many that the Romans razed the temple and killed a lot of the jews. It’s an interesting perod primarily because the three dominant religions today came out of those events.

My point wasn’t that Christianity has a written out defined concept like the dhimmi, however they had serfs, slaves, heretics, etc. It’s well known how Christians treated non Christians, if they didn’t accept Christ, they would be seen as heretics. Jews were seen as Christ killers and treated accordingly. Not a dhimmi on paper but effectivelt the same thing.

JMK - Nowhere and at no time did Christians or Jews require members of other religions to put wear insignias over their shops that would designate that status,.
That’s right the Nazis took away their shops and made them wear the Stars on their chest.

All religions are by there very nature oppressive.

JMK - Here’s a good place to learn more about dhimmitude;

Thanks for the link – but I do know about dhimmis aleady. I’m not saying I endorse the concept, I just saiyng that it’s not a unique concept to religions as a whole.

“America went to the UN and the UNSC signed onto 1441 as a “Last Chance Resolution,” (that’s was said to be in the wording of that Resolution), so it doesn’t matter that they balked at enforcing it, their signing onto that initial wording gave America the right (even in UN parlance) to enforce it.” (JMK)
“Maybe in Bizarro World, however in the real world it takes more than your assertion to make something true. It’s common knowledge that the US and the UK, along with our vast alliance of small island nations, went to war in Iraq in opposition to the wishes of the UN. So clearly if the UN is opposed to an action then no member state is sanctioned (even in UN parlance) whatsoever.

“No one is saying we are beholden to the UN for permission to do anything, and I’m not saying we ever should be; however it’s one thing to say we are under no obligation to get an endorsement from the UN for our actions, it’s another thing to continuously try to prove that we somehow do have an endorsement playing semantic games. Why do you feel the need to get that endorsement? Why do you care? Why is it so important that our actions in Iraq are tacitly endorsed by an organization that you view as an ineffective archaic puppet; a failed experiment that never should have occurred?

It’s fascinating to me that you detest the UN so much, while at the same time it seems critical to you that they endorse our actions. Fascinating.” (GZ)
“I’ve said from the start, and Shorty-G (real guy, btw) put it fairly succinctly, that the UN & NATO are “fictions we use to rationalize certain actions.”

We DON’T need approval from an organization that never steps up to do anything – they were handed Rwanda (a relatively easy task, comparatively) and balked there. They opposed the invasion of the Balkans too. I don’t “detest” the UN, I believe it’s superfluous and supercilious.

But on 1441 the UNSC signed onto what was worded a “LAST CHANCE RESOLUTION.”

By signing onto that, they effectively abrogated their right to reneg, or argue that “We didn’t view it as a ‘last chance’ Resolution.” The UNSC wittingly or unwittingly winked at the U.S. & the UK’s (that “Anglo-American alliance, the same one that fought WW II – USA, England, Australia, Canada) “Last Chance” language. The signing of that Resolution endorsed the invasion, before they opposed it.
“K-rist!!

Again, as Shorty-G so ineloquently put it (sorry Shorty-G, it’s true) the UN & NATO are “fictitious.” It’s America and England and British Samoa that are REAL entities. Countries really EXIST, these imaginary unions of various (non-alligned) nations do not...at least, not really. (JMK)
“That’s correct and it’s also correct that there is no Anglo-American Alliance - as an official body that enacts laws or passes resolutions.” (GZ)
I never alluded to any “official BODY called...what???...”the Anglo-American Alliance?”

No, I alluded to the Anglo-American Alliance between England, America and all the English speaking nations of the world (Australia, Canada) that effectively fought WW II and faced down the Communist threat in the Cold War.

REAL Alliances don’t enact laws or pass reolutions – why write checks when you have cash? Why write resolutions when you can kick ass (enforce your will by force)???
“The way it works is that one nation doesn’t impose legislation on another. Sure there are other ways to exert control – through trade, threat of military action, turning other economic screws, we all understand how things REALLY work, however I’m sure you’d agree there’s two levels to the world. The polished shiny clean front, and the inner dirtier grittier reality where things get done. In many ways the world on the front is a facade, but we like to believe in that façade.” (GZ)
No only children believe in things that don’t actually exist.

It’s OK to accept the veneer of civilization we all do to mask the uglier side of an often brutally competitive world, BUT it’s vital to accept and recognize that the façade ain’t real.

Now, if that’s your main problem with America’s WoT – it’s war against global Sharia-based Islam, then on the one hand I understand your revulsion over the indelicacies, but I don’t see that as any basis for denying the reality we face.
“So we create bodies like the UN that are empowered by member nations to make rulings that effect all of them, that’s part of signing the UN charter. Of course we all know that behind the scenes if an influencial nation wants something done they will exert pressure to get what they want...

“...Now in the case of an individual nation such as the US, UK, Samoa, etc. or even an alliance of two nations, you cannot impose sanctions, or create laws that are binding on another sovereign nation. You can go to war and impose your will, or you can go to war economically by imposing tariffs, limiting trade, etc.” (GZ)
America and England certainly DID have the sovereign right to enforce 1441, even when the UN changed course and opposed it.

Since 1441 was signed onto as a “Last Chance” Resolution, that, in effect, put the hammer in America’s and England’s hands with the UN’s blessings.

The fact that France, Germany and Russia then scrambled to protect their illicit Oil-for-Food violating deals, is immaterial.

You might well say, that THEY had no right to try and enforce contracts that were illegal under the auspices of the very body they used to shield them.

In the end none of that mattered anyway. The Bush & Blair administrations pulled a “fast one” over on Kofi and the boys at the UN, by getting the UNSC to sign onto a “Last Chance” Resolution.
“That’s the first thing we have to agree on. There’s no possible common ground absent that.
“The UN, NATO, etc are all fictions we use to lend credence to basically making other people do the things we want them to do, even when they don’t want to do them.” (JMK)
“I’d agree that the weight of nations like the US and Britain is a lot more effective than a UN resolution, however that doesn’t mean there’s a legal basis for either nation to start imposing sanctions on an international basis – unless you call a spade a spade and define it as war.” (GZ)
Uhhhh, we DID call it (the invasion of Saddam’s Iraq) “a war.”
“What in the hell are you talking about???

What could possibly be more clear than the statement, “There are no people, so far as I know, with any expertise, who've made the case that Iran, Iraq and Syria (yes even pre-2001) were NOT America's enemies and supporter's (sponsors, harborers, etc) of international terrorism.” Every terror expert in existence (and I’ve gone to dozens of conferences at taxpayer expense) and not a one has challenged the Bush “Axis of Evil (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, N Korea).” (JMK)
“What in the hell I’m talking about is the statement you made earlier:

“We could've invaded EITHER Iran, Iraq or Syria after Afghanistan and they would've been equally justified...hell, maybe we should've launched an assault on all three at once.”

And this statement you made(before you decided to editorialize and add NOT):

“There are no people, so far as I know, with any expertise, who've made the case that Iran, Iraq and Syria (yes even pre-2001) were America's enemies and supporter's (sponsors, harborers, etc) of international terrorism.” (GZ)
That last statement makes no sense without the critical “NOT,” placed who've made the case that Iran, Iraq and Syria (yes even pre-2001) were NOT America's enemies.”

...Hmmmm, it seems missing from the first post, which is odd since I pasted it from MS Word. I must’ve lost that word in the crossover.

ANYWAY, the point is that NO ONE with ANY expertise would dare say that on 9/12/01 Syria, Iran and Iraq were all equal “enemies of the USA and supporters of international terrorism.”

Sure, some (many) will concede that the evidence against ANY of them was poor, at best, but that’s immaterial too!

Foreign policy isn’t conducted like a trial, where “the people” get to look at all the evidence and decide if the government’s made its case.

The evidence in the Balkans showed that the Muslims in Kosovo initiated the first genocide there and were morally as bad, or worse than Milocevic and the Serbs, but again, THAT decision cannot and should not be left to the public. There were overriding factors responsible for our decision on which side to go in on in the Balakns.

Sometimes, the less the public knows, the better.

With Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, N Korea and Syria comprising “the Axis of Evil,” we could’ve made the case for invading Iran, Iraq or Syria along with Afghanistan, or even all four at once, as the evidence on all was equally thin.
“Not exactly “essentially the same as,” unless by “essentially the same as,” you mean that there is no comparable concept to “dhimmitude” within either Christianity or Judaism, for if it existed in Christianity, it would’ve had to originate in Judaism, as Christianity is founded upon Judaism, as Christ WAS the Martin Luther of Judaism.” (JMK)
“Well not really, does the concept of the trinity arise within Judaism? Christ is more than just the Martin Luther of Judaism, in fact we’re not sure what Judaism was like in his time. Because around the time of his death there were a great many jews rising against Rome, so many that the Romans razed the temple and killed a lot of the jews. It’s an interesting perod primarily because the three dominant religions today came out of those events.”

My point wasn’t that Christianity has a written out defined concept like the dhimmi, however they had serfs, slaves, heretics, etc. It’s well known how Christians treated non Christians, if they didn’t accept Christ, they would be seen as heretics. Jews were seen as Christ killers and treated accordingly. Not a dhimmi on paper but effectivelt the same thing.”
Oh BOY!!!

Serfs and vassals were NOT religious nomenclature. They were positions that existed and were created within an economic system called feudalism, which was far superior to any other economic system of its day!

The rest of the world predominantly lived in agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies which were much more brutal and oppressive than was feudalism at the time.

The “heretic” was a political charge. Heretics weren’t a threat for their not believing in Christ, but for undermining the Papal authority in Europe.

As for, “...Does the concept of the trinity arise within Judaism?”

It seems as though you’re now saying that Judaism is “worse,” or more base than Christianity, merely because it’s older and thus more primitive?!

Sure, Christ’s teachings revolutionized philosophy, moving away from Judaism’s “An eye for an eye,” style of justice, by advocating “Turning the other cheek,” but that doesn’t necessarily make Judaism “worse” than Christianity as a religion, only older and OK, somewhat more brutal in its teachings.

While it may be true that Medieval Christians and Jews both treated non-believers very badly, BOTH of those religions and the societies they’ve spawned have had Reformations (the Christian Reformation and Reformed Judaism), whereas the Muslim world still adheres to those same Medieval values that are, by the way inconsistent with America’s current “globalization” agenda.

Again, not close to the concept of dhimmitude.
“Nowhere and at no time did Christians or Jews require members of other religions to put wear insignias over their shops that would designate that status.” (JMK)
“That’s right the Nazis took away their shops and made them wear the Stars on their chest.

All religions are by there very nature oppressive.”
I don’t follow you.

Nazism, a cult run by a half Jewish leader (A Hitler) and a member of the occult lodge, the Thule Gestalt was also a “religion?”

In so far as cults and religions share certain features, you might argue that, but I wouldn’t, any more than I’d argue that “Nazism was a Christian ideology,” nor that “Hitler was a good Jew.”

Those are all badly flawed arguments.

In fact, the Nazis borrowed the labeling they were famous for from the Arab-Muslims.

In fact, the Muslim world’s one dalliance with “modernity” was its alliance with the Teutonic Axis in both WW I & WW II.

In the latter case, since Hitler’s Nazism was predicated on a fictitious, ancient Nordic myth, the Muslim world again embraced views and values that were, in essence, anti-modern.

See; http://www.his-forever.com/undeniable_historical_links.htm
“Here’s a good place to learn more about dhimmitude;” (JMK)
“Thanks for the link – but I do know about dhimmis aleady. I’m not saying I endorse the concept, I just saiyng that it’s not a unique concept to religions as a whole.” (GZ)
Didn’t say you “endorsed” it, but your above post shows you certainly don’t get the concept.

Nothing like it in ANY other religion EVER!

Hmmm, it seems I did it again, "ANYWAY, the point is that NO ONE with ANY expertise would dare say that on 9/12/01 Syria, Iran and Iraq were all equal “enemies of the USA and supporters of international terrorism.” SHOULD BE;

"ANYWAY, the point is that NO ONE with ANY expertise would dare say that on 9/12/01 Syria, Iran and Iraq were NOT all equal “enemies of the USA and supporters of international terrorism.”

OR,

"ANYWAY, the point is that NO ONE with ANY expertise would dare DENY that on 9/12/01 Syria, Iran and Iraq were all equal “enemies of the USA and supporters of international terrorism.”

The evidence of any nation's wrongdoing is too easily hidden.

A case couldn't even effectively be made against Noriega in a U.S. court previous to that invasion.

Same with Colombia. We suspect (KNOW) that the Colombian governemnt, or at least many parts of it (judges, police, some public officials) are complicit in the cocaine trafficking, but proving it is very difficult...next to impossible, when it comes to proving a government's wrong-doing.

I'm sure you can see that while drug trafficking is one thing (a criminal matter), terrorism is quite another (an act of unconventional warfare against civilian populations), so we often can't wait to gather evidence when it comes to acting to stop terrorism.

JMK - “I’ve said from the start, and Shorty-G (real guy, btw) put it fairly succinctly, that the UN & NATO are “fictions we use to rationalize certain actions.”

You say that as if it isn’t already abundantly clear. And as far as Shorty-G goes I’m to believe that he’s a real guy who sat beside you and typed phonetically to “sound” urban-esque? Or was that you using artistic license to emulate a person you know? Either way it was ridiculous and didn’t speak to the point.

JMK - We DON’T need approval from an organization that never steps up to do anything – they were handed Rwanda (a relatively easy task, comparatively) and balked there. They opposed the invasion of the Balkans too. I don’t “detest” the UN, I believe it’s superfluous and supercilious.

Noone said we need UN approval, certainly not I. All I’ve said is that we didn’t have UN approval, you are the one who has a compulsion to prove that somehow we actually did have UN approval when we in fact did not. I’ve also stated quite clearly that the UN is the body that issued resolution 1441, the UN is the body as a whole that decides upon enforcement. If the UN as a whole decides on a given course, one of it’s member nations can certainly decide to take a different course of action, after all we’re all sovereign nations. What you cannot do is claim said UN resolution as your justification, because the UN decides the outcome of it’s resolutions not it’s individual member states, no matter how powerful. That doesn’t mean we need to defer to the UN before taking any action, it just means that if we disagree with a UN vote, then it’s pretty clear that we cannot use the UN as justification when we choose to ignore their ruling.

JMK - By signing onto that, they effectively abrogated their right to reneg, or argue that “We didn’t view it as a ‘last chance’ Resolution.” The UNSC wittingly or unwittingly winked at the U.S. & the UK’s (that “Anglo-American alliance, the same one that fought WW II – USA, England, Australia, Canada) “Last Chance” language. The signing of that Resolution endorsed the invasion, before they opposed it.

Is that the legal interpretation or just the one you came up with?

JMK - I never alluded to any “official BODY called...what???...”the Anglo-American Alliance?”
No, I alluded to the Anglo-American Alliance between England, America and all the English speaking nations of the world (Australia, Canada) that effectively fought WW II and faced down the Communist threat in the Cold War.

Let’s take a step back. Resolutions, laws, whatever..they are created, passed enforced by whatever organization creates them. The Kiwanis club has bi-laws, so does the Republican party, townships have laws as do counties, states and nations. International treatied organizations also have ordinances – such as NATO or OPEC, etc. The NYPD does not enforce the Kiwanis bi-laws. Certainly if a law is being broken they can act based upon that, however they cannot (and would not) cite a Kiwanis bi-law as the rationale for their action.

Are you following me?

Of course there is no Anglo-American Alliance in the sense that it’s a formalized treaty organization, however you used the term as if it was even though you probably didn’t mean to imply that it was one. And you’ve finally come back to address it. See you are muddying the waters a bit needlessly. There is only one organization that can enforce a UN resolution, that is the UN. If the UN decides to “pardon” (for lack of a better word) a nation then you cannot use the UN as support if you decide to pursue said nation on your own.

JMK - REAL Alliances don’t enact laws or pass reolutions – why write checks when you have cash? Why write resolutions when you can kick ass (enforce your will by force)???

Why bother to insist that your ass-kicking is validated by a resolution from an “unreal” Alliance such as the UN? If you’re paying cash why are you recording it in your checkbook?

JMK - No only children believe in things that don’t actually exist.
It’s OK to accept the veneer of civilization we all do to mask the uglier side of an often brutally competitive world, BUT it’s vital to accept and recognize that the façade ain’t real.

The façade is as real as it is – it does play a role in how things are done because there is an interest in perpetuating the façade – that alone gives it a reality. And where did I say I believe in the façade? Did I not call it one to begin with?

JMK - Now, if that’s your main problem with America’s WoT – it’s war against global Sharia-based Islam, then on the one hand I understand your revulsion over the indelicacies, but I don’t see that as any basis for denying the reality we face.

This hasn’t even been directly about the WOT, this has been about whether you can justify a course of action (in this case the invasion of Iraq) based on a resolution created by a larger body of which you are only a part. When that larger body does not agree with your enforcement of their resolution. It’s been an exercise in pointing out the distinction between our sovereign right to defy the UN if we wish because we disagree with their decision, and helping to enforce a resolution at the request of the UN because we are in agreement.

In either case we can do as we wish, but only in one can we say we are backed by the UN and their resolutions.

JMK - America and England certainly DID have the sovereign right to enforce 1441, even when the UN changed course and opposed it.
Since 1441 was signed onto as a “Last Chance” Resolution, that, in effect, put the hammer in America’s and England’s hands with the UN’s blessings.
The fact that France, Germany and Russia then scrambled to protect their illicit Oil-for-Food violating deals, is immaterial.
You might well say, that THEY had no right to try and enforce contracts that were illegal under the auspices of the very body they used to shield them.

I certainly WOULD say that, not because I defend or agree with France, Germany or Russia, but because in terms of the UN and UN resolutions their dissent means that according to the rules of the UN enforcement of the resolution was waived.

See my whole issue with citing the resolutions has always been one of a technical nature. The US and England have a sovereign right to act in their own interest, and on that basis they have the right to invade Iraq or anywhere else if there is a REAL reason. I happen to disagree with the evidence for invading Iraq, I always have, however this is not about that. I never denied the sovereign right of either the UK or America. What I denied is their right to rewrite reality and claim that they are doing something on the basis of the UN, and not for their own interests. If you really believe this is purely about our sovereign interests then I’ll ask you again why the urgency to justify this via the UN?

JMK - Uhhhh, we DID call it (the invasion of Saddam’s Iraq) “a war.”

Yes – so use that as the justification, not the UN resolutions which the UN as a body does not believe were adequate to support this war.

JMK - That last statement makes no sense without the critical “NOT,” placed who've made the case that Iran, Iraq and Syria (yes even pre-2001) were NOT America's enemies.”

Hey, you are the one who left out the “critical NOT” not me. You’re correct though it made no sense, which is why I called attention to it.

JMK - ...Hmmmm, it seems missing from the first post, which is odd since I pasted it from MS Word. I must’ve lost that word in the crossover.

It is missing from the first post which is why I pointed it out.

JMK - That last statement makes no sense without the critical “NOT,” placed who've made the case that Iran, Iraq and Syria (yes even pre-2001) were NOT America's enemies.”
...Hmmmm, it seems missing from the first post, which is odd since I pasted it from MS Word. I must’ve lost that word in the crossover.
ANYWAY, the point is that NO ONE with ANY expertise would dare say that on 9/12/01 Syria, Iran and Iraq were all equal “enemies of the USA and supporters of international terrorism.”
Sure, some (many) will concede that the evidence against ANY of them was poor, at best, but that’s immaterial too!
Foreign policy isn’t conducted like a trial, where “the people” get to look at all the evidence and decide if the government’s made its case.
The evidence in the Balkans showed that the Muslims in Kosovo initiated the first genocide there and were morally as bad, or worse than Milocevic and the Serbs, but again, THAT decision cannot and should not be left to the public. There were overriding factors responsible for our decision on which side to go in on in the Balakns.
Sometimes, the less the public knows, the better.
With Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, N Korea and Syria comprising “the Axis of Evil,” we could’ve made the case for invading Iran, Iraq or Syria along with Afghanistan, or even all four at once, as the evidence on all was equally thin.

I don’t think you could ever make the case for a simultaneous invasion of all 4 simply because we don’t have enough of an army. We can’t even handle the piece we’re chewing on now.

JMK - Oh BOY!!!
Serfs and vassals were NOT religious nomenclature. They were positions that existed and were created within an economic system called feudalism, which was far superior to any other economic system of its day!

Yes but that really doesn’t say much. My point was that culturally there have always been those on the upside and those on the downside. In ages past this disparity was more profound. I never claimed they were all religious nomenclature, it’s naïve to believe that they have to be in order to apply. Do you believe the lords and ladies felt that the serfs were their equals? Or slaves – I suppose they had the same rights as Dhimmies? How about those branded heretics or heathens? Those who refused to let missionaries “save” them.

If you want to argue that the western world as a whole moved out of that type of extremely unequal treatment of
People a lot sooner than the Islamic world I’d agree. They still need to go a ways obviously. My point was that there are parallels in all systems.

JMK - The “heretic” was a political charge. Heretics weren’t a threat for their not believing in Christ, but for undermining the Papal authority in Europe.

Sometimes, other times it was because of a belief that contradicted church teachings. Galileo is a famous example. Remember that in those times politics was as entwined with the church as it is in the most extremely religious Islamic states today.

JMK – As for, “...Does the concept of the trinity arise within Judaism?”
It seems as though you’re now saying that Judaism is “worse,” or more base than Christianity, merely because it’s older and thus more primitive?!

It would only seem that way to someone who can’t answer my question? Does the trinity arise within Judaism? I never said either was worse. I merely pointed out the most obvious example of a Christian belief that has absolutely no basis in Judaism.

JMK - Sure, Christ’s teachings revolutionized philosophy, moving away from Judaism’s “An eye for an eye,” style of justice, by advocating “Turning the other cheek,” but that doesn’t necessarily make Judaism “worse” than Christianity as a religion, only older and OK, somewhat more brutal in its teachings.

Who are you saying ok to yourself? STRAW MAN ALERT. I never claimed anything was better or worse, you made the connection with no basis.

And Christianity did not revolutionize philosophy, nor is it a benevolent religion. It’s spawned the Crusades, the Inquisition, it’s been used as a justification to eradicate native populations, it was used as an excuse for the holocaust. I don’t blame the average Christian, but many have twisted the church to their own ends. Thr result is not such a peaceful religion historically speaking.

JMK - While it may be true that Medieval Christians and Jews both treated non-believers very badly, BOTH of those religions and the societies they’ve spawned have had Reformations (the Christian Reformation and Reformed Judaism), whereas the Muslim world still adheres to those same Medieval values that are, by the way inconsistent with America’s current “globalization” agenda.

I think I’ve already said as much.

JMK - Again, not close to the concept of dhimmitude.

Depends where you’re sitting. I don’t justify the concept however if you examine the rights of a dhimmie vs the rights of a slave then you can see who was treated better.

JMK - I don’t follow you.
Nazism, a cult run by a half Jewish leader (A Hitler) and a member of the occult lodge, the Thule Gestalt was also a “religion?”

Now you are diving off the deep end into obscure pseudo-history. It’s not proven that Hitler was a jew by any means, it’s a theory put forth by some. Same with the Thule issue. Even if both of your statements were true (and they aren’t) it’s the german people, protestants mostly that went along with this and had them wear stars. Or that doesn’t qualify somehow? You don’t think there was a religious component to the persecution of the jews?

JMK - Didn’t say you “endorsed” it, but your above post shows you certainly don’t get the concept.
Nothing like it in ANY other religion EVER!

Nah I get it, I also get the less obvious connections between religion and the prevailing culture especially in the past. You don’t think the people who owned slaves were religious? Do you think they didn’t justify keeping slaves because their religion diodn’t apply to the slaves since they were animals in their eyes? I know – tunnel vision and simple concepts…I don’t expect you to look below the superficialities on the surface.

“All I’ve said is that we didn’t have UN approval, I’ve also stated quite clearly that the UN is the body that issued resolution 1441, the UN is the body as a whole that decides upon enforcement. If the UN as a whole decides on a given course, one of it’s member nations can certainly decide to take a different course of action, after all we’re all sovereign nations.” (GZ)
“And I’ve only told the truth – that 1441 was a Resolution drafted by the U.S. and brought before the UNSC as “a last chance Resolution.”

The UNSC’s signing onto that as “a last chance Resolution” was, in effect “UN approval.”

I refuse to deal with the argument that the UNSC later changed its view.

I consider that immaterial to my initial argument.

What that initial approval DOES is show that the phrase, “UN opposed” is not entirely accurate.

Suffice to say the U.S. and the U.K. demanded that Saddam’s regime comply with the directives of 1441 or face Military intervention (a fair and reasonable demand). When Saddam refused to comply with 1441, the U.S. and the U.K. had already made clear that FOR THEM 1441 was “a last chance” option, they rightly moved to act on Saddam’s refusal to comply, taking that as an indication that Saddam’s Iraq DID have the WMDs most of the world’s intelligence agencies believed they did.

Turns out that that was a perception Hussein worked hard to maintain, in order to keep other enemies at bay.
“What you cannot do is claim said UN resolution as your justification, because the UN decides the outcome of it’s resolutions not it’s individual member states, no matter how powerful.” (GZ)
Again, the UNSC signed onto 1441 as “a last chance Resolution,” if they had any reservations about that, they should’ve removed that wording.

When they didn’t, they went on record as accepting that Saddam’s Iraq deserved no other chances.

I've NEVER called the invasion of Iraq “UN approved.”

It’s immaterial whether that body, a body that watched the Tutsis of Rwanda slaughter 700,000 Hutus within 6 months under the noses of UN observers.

What I’ve shown is that those who call Iraq “UN opposed” are actually morally wrong and only technically right. Approving 1441 as “a last chance Resolution” proves they supported it, before a few members opposed it.
“By signing onto that, they effectively abrogated their right to reneg, or argue that “We didn’t view it as a ‘last chance’ Resolution.” The UNSC wittingly or unwittingly winked at the U.S. & the UK’s (that “Anglo-American alliance, the same one that fought WW II – USA, England, Australia, Canada) “Last Chance” language. The signing of that Resolution endorsed the invasion, before they opposed it.” (JMK)
“Is that the legal interpretation or just the one you came up with?” (GZ)
“It’s neither, it’s actually a moral imperative.

Once you take a stand, absent no new information there’s no rational reason for reversing it.” (JMK)
“America and England certainly DID have the sovereign right to enforce 1441, even when the UN changed course and opposed it.” (GZ)
Yes, THAT is completely correct, BUT by initially approving 1441 as “a last chance resolution,” the UNSC (wittingly or not) approved the enforcing of that Resolution.
“You might well say, that THEY had no right to try and enforce contracts that were illegal under the auspices of the very body they used to shield them.” (JMK)
“I certainly WOULD say that, not because I defend or agree with France, Germany or Russia, but because in terms of the UN and UN resolutions their dissent means that according to the rules of the UN enforcement of the resolution was waived.” (GZ)
Here again, you acknowledge that France, Germany and Russia all had vile and illegitimate motives for opposing the actual enforcing of 1441, then ask that that be ignored in order to rationalize a technicality.

The UNSC (including France, Germany and Russia) only opposed the invasion because they all sought to protect various, illicit deals they had in place with Iraq.

That (their defending those illicit deals) was not only a violation of UN sanctions, but of all those “principles” the idea of a UN was based on.
“See my whole issue with citing the resolutions has always been one of a technical nature.” (GZ)
“I know that, but it’s not merely a technicality, it’s a technicality based on illegitimate actions by France, Germany and Russia.”
“The US and England have a sovereign right to act in their own interest, and on that basis they have the right to invade Iraq or anywhere else if there is a REAL reason. I happen to disagree with the evidence for invading Iraq, I always have, however this is not about that. I never denied the sovereign right of either the UK or America...If you really believe this is purely about our sovereign interests then I’ll ask you again why the urgency to justify this via the UN?” (GZ)
You mistake my claiming that the false charge that, "The invasion of Iraq was “UN opposed,” is claiming UN approval.

What I’ve said is that (1) the UNSC signed onto 1441 as “a last chance Resolution” (a fact) and (2) that the subsequent balk by UNSC members France, Germany and Russia was based on their defending various illegal deals they had with Iraq (also a fact). In other words the UNSC approved of the invasion, before they opposed and they retreated from that enforcement due to wanting to keep hidden various deals that directly violated the Oil-for-Food program.

When the rest of the UNSC backed away from 1441 that left America & England in the unenviable position of HAVING to defend that “LAST CHANCE,” option.

Moreover, it’s now common knowledge (even reported in the NY Times) that even Saddam’s Generals were lied to and believed Saddam’s Iraq had WMDs.

If even Saddam’s Generals believed they had caches of WMDs, then it’s no wonder that NONE of the world’s intelligence agencies believed anything other than Iraq having WMDs.

The people who believed Iraq did not possess those WMDs before the invasion didn’t base those opinions on ANY actual intelligence (there was none), merely on personal conjecture.

Here is an excerpt from that NY Times story;

“The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense.

In December 2002, he told his top commanders that Iraq did not possess unconventional arms, like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, according to the Iraq Survey Group, a task force established by the C.I.A. to investigate what happened to Iraq's weapons programs. Mr. Hussein wanted his officers to know they could not rely on poison gas or germ weapons if war broke out. The disclosure that the cupboard was bare, Mr. Aziz said, sent morale plummeting.

Seeking to deter Iran and even enemies at home, the Iraqi dictator's goal was to cooperate with the inspectors while preserving some ambiguity about its unconventional weapons — a strategy General Hamdani, the Republican Guard commander, later dubbed in a television interview "deterrence by doubt."

That strategy led to mutual misperception. When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell addressed the Security Council in February 2003, he offered evidence from photographs and intercepted communications that the Iraqis were rushing to sanitize suspected weapons sites. Mr. Hussein's efforts to remove any residue from old unconventional weapons programs were viewed by the Americans as efforts to hide the weapons. The very steps the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it, increasing the odds of a military confrontation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/international/middleeast/12saddam.html?_r=2&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1142132938-g+zmA6soi5lK28n2EbRmqQ&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

On Dhimmitude:
“Do you believe the lords and ladies felt that the serfs were their equals? Or slaves – I suppose they had the same rights as Dhimmies? How about those branded heretics or heathens? Those who refused to let missionaries “save” them.” (GZ)
No, you’re completely wrong on this and that’s because you don’t actually understand the concept of dhimmitude.

Dhimmitude is NOT merely “unequal status.”

I believe in “unequal status,” we ALL do.

In ALL modern societies, some skills are valued more highly (paid more) making those skills and the people who do them “unequal” in status and financial position in society.

That’s not at all related to dhimmitude, which ironically enough is “equal status,” in that ALL members of a Muslim society, Muslim and non-Muslim are equally subject to Muslim (SHARIA) Law.

Within Sharia Law is the view that non-Muslim (dhimmis) can be enslaved or even slaughtered by Muslims because that (forced conversion or death to the infidel) is a basic tenet of Islam.

The modern age, a byproduct of the industrial revolution began in earnest with the eradication of chattel slavery.

England was the first to eradicate it, then France, followed by the U.S.

Chattel slavery still exists in places like Sub-Saharan Africa and a large part of Asia and almost ALL of the Muslim world.

Dhimmitude is far from slavery, far from serfdom or any other concept you mentioned. There are not only no parallels today, but not any actual Medieval European ones either – neither serfs, slaves, heretics nor were subject to slaughter on the street merely for being what they were.
“If you want to argue that the western world as a whole moved out of that type of extremely unequal treatment of people a lot sooner than the Islamic world I’d agree. They still need to go a ways obviously. My point was that there are parallels in all systems.” (GZ)
There are no parallels between Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Of the THREE only Islam is predicated upon “conversion or death.”
“And Christianity did not revolutionize philosophy, nor is it a benevolent religion. It’s spawned the Crusades, the Inquisition, it’s been used as a justification to eradicate native populations, it was used as an excuse for the holocaust. I don’t blame the average Christian, but many have twisted the church to their own ends. Thr result is not such a peaceful religion historically speaking.” (GZ)
Again, you’re wrong.

Christianity is a radical departure from the primitive ramblings of the Old Testament.

The WORD is “Throw out the Old Testament, for the “Good News” has been delivered (by Christ, according to believers).

I believe that Nietzsche was more correct than Christ, but there’s no doubt that Christ’s philosophy ushered in the modern age.

The Old Testament and the Torah extol chattel slavery, child abuse and violent retribution.

The New Testament eschews all those things.

The concepts of the trinity and the Virgin Birth are particular to Christianity and proof that Christ’s teachings were a radical departure from the religion he sought to reform – Judaism.
“It’s the german people, protestants mostly that went along with this and had them wear stars. Or that doesn’t qualify somehow? You don’t think there was a religious component to the persecution of the jews?” (GZ)
Blaming the “German people” for Hitler’s megalomania and atrocities, is the same as blaming the Russian people for Stalin’s and the Chinese for Mao’s atrocities.

ALL of that is utter nonsense.

The primary horror of the Third Reich wasn’t its racial policies, which were indeed horrific, but the same horror primary horror of Mao’s China and Stalin’s USSR its adherence to Socialism – “economic slavery,” or “slavery to the state.”

So, no neither Western chattel slavery, nor Nazism had any “religious” (certainly not “Christian) component,” any more than the horror of Communism (equal in its horrors and even more drenched in atrocities than Nazism) had a “Jewish component.”

Both charges are “blood libels” against both religions, similar to claiming that most KKK members were also Southern Democrats (they were), so the KKK has a Democratic Party component or affiliation. It turns out that the KK is an entity onto itself, unrelated to the Democratic Party, just as Stalin’s Soviet Socialism is unrelated to Judaism and just as Hitler’s occult-based Nazism is unrelated to Christianity.

JMK - “And I’ve only told the truth – that 1441 was a Resolution drafted by the U.S. and brought before the UNSC as “a last chance Resolution.”
The UNSC’s signing onto that as “a last chance Resolution” was, in effect “UN approval.”

That’s like saying John McCain introduces a bill onto the Senate floor, then once it becomes law he is empowered to enforce that law as he chooses, even if his interpretation is different then the consensus of the Senate as a whole.

Again it’s a UN Resolution, not a US resolution.

JMK – “I refuse to deal with the argument that the UNSC later changed its view.
I consider that immaterial to my initial argument.”

You can refuse to deal with whatever you want, that doesn’t change reality. I am not making the argument that the UN changed it’s view – YOU are. YOU are the one who insists that signing the resolution equates to approval, clearly it does not. Clearly the UN disagreed with our action and you can complain all day that you don’t like the rules under which the UN governs itself, you can complain all day that it’s ineffective, but you cannot change the reality of how the UN functions for your convenience. The reality is that the UN as an organization decided not to enforce the resolution. America’s and the UK’s action was not sanctioned by the UN. You can refuse to deal with that reality but that reality will never change.

Again I have to ask why you care so much about validation from an organization that you find so useless and ineffective to begin with?

JMK - Suffice to say the U.S. and the U.K. demanded that Saddam’s regime comply with the directives of 1441 or face Military intervention (a fair and reasonable demand). When Saddam refused to comply with 1441, the U.S. and the U.K. had already made clear that FOR THEM 1441 was “a last chance” option, they rightly moved to act on Saddam’s refusal to comply, taking that as an indication that Saddam’s Iraq DID have the WMDs most of the world’s intelligence agencies believed they did.

“Rightly acted” is subject to debate. All that can be said is that the US and UK are not beholden to the UN. In stating that for them the resolution was a last chance option they were in effect making their own resolution, separate from the UN. So the resolution cannot be cited as validation, instead it’s the US and UK’s interpretation that can be cited – which is very different than saying you have UN approval. Clearly we never did.

JMK - Again, the UNSC signed onto 1441 as “a last chance Resolution,” if they had any reservations about that, they should’ve removed that wording.
When they didn’t, they went on record as accepting that Saddam’s Iraq deserved no other chances.

Only in bizarro world, in the real world they went on record when they opposed the US UK action.

JMK - I've NEVER called the invasion of Iraq “UN approved.”
It’s immaterial whether that body, a body that watched the Tutsis of Rwanda slaughter 700,000 Hutus within 6 months under the noses of UN observers.
What I’ve shown is that those who call Iraq “UN opposed” are actually morally wrong and only technically right. Approving 1441 as “a last chance Resolution” proves they supported it, before a few members opposed it.

Now you’re splitting hairs in order to be “technically right yourself” I’m not going to go searching through the thread for you exact wording, however your continuous citing of resolution 1441 as justification for the war certainly implies UN approval. As to what you’ve shown, you’ve shown nothing. How am I for example “morally wrong” for pointing out the fact that the UN opposed our actions in Iraq? They did, that doesn’t mean I’m technically right, it means I’m right. There’s no morality or immorality in it, it’s just a fact. If you want to argue that the UN’s decision was morally wrong that’s another matter entirely that has absolutely no bearing on someone citing a fact.

JMK - “By signing onto that, they effectively abrogated their right to reneg, or argue that “We didn’t view it as a ‘last chance’ Resolution.” The UNSC wittingly or unwittingly winked at the U.S. & the UK’s (that “Anglo-American alliance, the same one that fought WW II – USA, England, Australia, Canada) “Last Chance” language. The signing of that Resolution endorsed the invasion, before they opposed it.” (JMK)

“Is that the legal interpretation or just the one you came up with?” (GZ)
JMK - “It’s neither, it’s actually a moral imperative.
Once you take a stand, absent no new information there’s no rational reason for reversing it.”

In other words it’s one you came up with. The reality is that the UN abrogated nothing in a legal sense. Also your point that it was “absent no new information” is technically correct (since absent no new information is effectively a double negative that really means there was new information – which I know wasn’t your meaning). The new information was that towards the end Saddam chose to comply and allow inspectors in, remember that? But GWB said no, too late times up. Of course the UN saw it as compliance…whether you find it acceptable or not that was new information.

JMK - Yes, THAT is completely correct, BUT by initially approving 1441 as “a last chance resolution,” the UNSC (wittingly or not) approved the enforcing of that Resolution.

You can say this a hundred more times and it still won’t be legally true and you know it.

JMK - Here again, you acknowledge that France, Germany and Russia all had vile and illegitimate motives for opposing the actual enforcing of 1441, then ask that that be ignored in order to rationalize a technicality.
The UNSC (including France, Germany and Russia) only opposed the invasion because they all sought to protect various, illicit deals they had in place with Iraq.
That (their defending those illicit deals) was not only a violation of UN sanctions, but of all those “principles” the idea of a UN was based on.

I’ve never claimed that other nations are somehow noble and devoid of self-interest. I’ve never claimed the UN is free of corruption and/or effective. In this thread I’ve very simply taken issue with you citing a UN resolution as validation for a US and UK action when the body issuing the resolution (the UN) does not condone/support/agree with the action. I’ve never discussed the motives of other nations, or the UN as a whole because that’s all irrelevant to the specific issue we are discussing.

JMK - “I know that, but it’s not merely a technicality, it’s a technicality based on illegitimate actions by France, Germany and Russia.”

You can argue that they are morally illegitimate, but that doesn’t make them legally illegitimate within the context of the UN hierarchy and in terms of resolution 1441. It’s not a technicality at all. It’s extremely relevant. This entire exercise of citing the resolution as proof is an exercise in trying to prove that the nations and the UN that opposed our actions in Iraq really endorsed them by way of a technicality. However that technicality has no legal basis, only a tenuous moral one at best.

JMK - You mistake my claiming that the false charge that, "The invasion of Iraq was “UN opposed,” is claiming UN approval.

So what exactly IS your argument that the UN was indifferent? The UN is on record as being opposed to our action. I don’t even know why you continue to waste words trying to obfuscate that fact. You can build any argument you wish and make it as convoluted as you like but that fact will never change.

JMK - Moreover, it’s now common knowledge (even reported in the NY Times) that even Saddam’s Generals were lied to and believed Saddam’s Iraq had WMDs.
If even Saddam’s Generals believed they had caches of WMDs, then it’s no wonder that NONE of the world’s intelligence agencies believed anything other than Iraq having WMDs.
The people who believed Iraq did not possess those WMDs before the invasion didn’t base those opinions on ANY actual intelligence (there was none), merely on personal conjecture.

It’s no secret that Saddam tried to hide the truth about WMD’s and why. He was like a turkey puffing up his feathers so that his neighbors wouldn’t see Iraq as vulnerable. Noone denies that, of course this has absolutely no bearing on whether the UN opposed the war or not.

The fact is that there was scarcely any actual intelligence on the presence of WMD’s before the invasion either. It’s been shown that the yellowcake story was disproven before the war. Former inspectors said there was nothing there. When Colin Powell went to the UN he claimed we had solid intelligence, that we knew exactly what they had and where they had it. That was a lie, he was lied to, so I don’t blame him entirely. The fact is that there was almost no actual intelligence to prove anything either way. So anyone who posited that they knew anything regarding the presence of WMD’s pro or con was basing that claim largely on conjecture and instinct.

JMK - No, you’re completely wrong on this and that’s because you don’t actually understand the concept of dhimmitude.
Dhimmitude is NOT merely “unequal status.”
I believe in “unequal status,” we ALL do.

No we don’t all believe in unequal status. Just because I accept our system of capitalism doesn’t mean I believe anyone should have a higher status than anyone else. Sure you are rewarded for your work – but that’s different. Anyone can opt out and live out their life free from work and responsibility. Some do that because they’ve inherited money. Some do it because they are bums. We view the two differently merely because of their assets. We shouldn’t. In many cases the bum is the more honest because he isn’t pretending that he has a higher value merely because of his bank account. I understand your point, and it has some relevance in terms of working and producing, but it’s only a small piece of the whole dynamic.

As to dhimmitude I completely understand the term, you ought to realize by now that when we have these little discussions it’s inevitably true that the person walking away with a new understanding of a concept is you and not me. You still never thanked me for explaining the concept of debt vs, deficit – but that’s another story.

JMK - Dhimmitude is far from slavery, far from serfdom or any other concept you mentioned. There are not only no parallels today, but not any actual Medieval European ones either – neither serfs, slaves, heretics nor were subject to slaughter on the street merely for being what they were.

Again just because you say something does not make it factually correct. I’m not sure where you get your information about dhimmitude, but it’s obviously the most extreme point of view. While I don’t support the concept I realize that it’s not as harsha s you like to claim.

Here’s a quote from Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University:
"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."
He goes on to say that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe."[

And from Wikipedia: “Dhimmis were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim supremacy.[8] Taxation from the perspective of dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"[9] (but now lower under the Muslim rule[10][11][12]) and from the point of view of the Muslim conqueror was a material proof of the dhimmi's subjection.[9] Various restrictions and legal disabilities were placed on Dhimmis, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[13] Most of these disabilities had a social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character.[14] Disarmed and unable to defend themselves in courts, dhimmis were vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs,[15] although persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical.[16]”
“dhimmis rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and with certain exceptions they were free in their choice of residence and profession.[18] And in general, the Muslim attitude toward dhimmis was one of contempt instead of hate, fear, or envy, and was rarely expressed in ethnic or racial terms.[19]”

Now again I am not endorsing dhimmitude, however it is not quite what you like to describe it as. Here’s another not quite parallel, feudal Japan. The samurai had the right to kill any peasant at anytime, no questions asked. However it’s not as if they did this on a regular basis. The samurai needed the peasants to work the land. I’m not endorsing that society either, however it can clearly be misrepresented as well.

You are the one who doesn’t understand dhimmitude, you have a narrow, narrow focus and only want to make the term fit as validation for your war on Sharia (another term you misuse).

JMK - There are no parallels between Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Of the THREE only Islam is predicated upon “conversion or death.”

Ever here of the Inquisition? How about the crusades? The holocaust (no option for conversion there)? How about the invasion of the New World? And Islam isnot about conversion or death. Even the concept of dhimmitude was one where people surrendered to that status instead of death.

JMK -
Again, you’re wrong.
Christianity is a radical departure from the primitive ramblings of the Old Testament.

No again YOU are wrong…should anyone be surprised? I never discussed it in relation to the Old Testament, and neither did you. What you said was “Christ’s teachings revolutionized philosophy,” I said that wasn’t true. They may have been a departure from judaism, but that doesn’t qualify as revolutionizing philosophy. You love building straw men don’t you?

JMK - The WORD is “Throw out the Old Testament, for the “Good News” has been delivered (by Christ, according to believers).
I believe that Nietzsche was more correct than Christ, but there’s no doubt that Christ’s philosophy ushered in the modern age.
The Old Testament and the Torah extol chattel slavery, child abuse and violent retribution.
The New Testament eschews all those things.

Yet despite all the love Christianity spawned the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc…You can complain about the Old Testament all you want…but I don’t see it being expunged from the Bible. It’s there so if you want to lay something at the feet of the Torah, it’s there at he feet of the Bible as well. If it’s all so bad why was it included? It’s pretty obvious that there were many gospels left out of the Bible. Because Christianity had many vastly different sects at first. As evidenced by the Dead Sea scrolls and the Gnostic Bible there was a great disparity of thought bac then. They’ve even recently been piecing together the gospel of Judas. The fact is the Bible today may not actually convey the real attitudes of the historical Jesus at all. But that’s another story. The real point is that in 325 AD the Council of Nicaea convened to determine what “official” Christian doctrine would be going forward, that’s when they expunged what they didn’t want. The different authors and different sects are the reason that the different Gospels in the Bible have somewhat different accounts of Jesus and his miracles.
So since they kept the old testament in it must have been considered of merit to the new religion. So you cannot act as if those stories are not there, and that they only apply in the Torah. That’s just ridiculous.

JMK - The concepts of the trinity and the Virgin Birth are particular to Christianity and proof that Christ’s teachings were a radical departure from the religion he sought to reform – Judaism.

The concept of the Trinity never appears anywhere in the Bible. It is something that was created at the Council of Nicaea 300 or so years after Jesus died. It had nothing to do with what he may or may not have been doing in relation to Judaism, it was instead an attempt consolidate the many different sects of Christianity that existed at the time. Sects that all had been former pagan religions with different beliefs and traditions. The Council of Nicaea was an effort to blend them all into one.

JMK - Blaming the “German people” for Hitler’s megalomania and atrocities, is the same as blaming the Russian people for Stalin’s and the Chinese for Mao’s atrocities.

I don’t blame them for enacting his policies, I blame them for accepting them. Do you really think Hitler could have done what he wanted if there wasn’t tacit approval? Jews were rounded up out of there hmes, there possessions taken, their businesses stolen, there wealth confiscated. First they were isolated in ghettoes. Then they were made to wear badges, then uniforms, then they were carted away, families ton apart, abused, raped, exterminated. All one man right? The rest of the germans were helpless to stop him right? C’mon you don’t have to be jewish or german to be appalled at this. My grandfather and grandmother (both German) left Germany in the 30’s because of what was happening. It wasn’t just Hitler, Hitler exploited the situation for his benefit. Don’t be naïve.

JMK - The primary horror of the Third Reich wasn’t its racial policies, which were indeed horrific, but the same horror primary horror of Mao’s China and Stalin’s USSR its adherence to Socialism – “economic slavery,” or “slavery to the state.”

That has to be te most idiotic thing you’ve ever said. You think socialism and facism are more horrific then the attempted extermination of an entire race of people? Do you even listen to the bullshit that flies out of your mouth?

JMK - So, no neither Western chattel slavery, nor Nazism had any “religious” (certainly not “Christian) component,” any more than the horror of Communism (equal in its horrors and even more drenched in atrocities than Nazism) had a “Jewish component.”
Both charges are “blood libels” against both religions, similar to claiming that most KKK members were also Southern Democrats (they were), so the KKK has a Democratic Party component or affiliation. It turns out that the KK is an entity onto itself, unrelated to the Democratic Party, just as Stalin’s Soviet Socialism is unrelated to Judaism and just as Hitler’s occult-based Nazism is unrelated to Christianity.

Again you build a straw man. I never said Christianity is evil because it inspired the holocaust. I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity. And again you cite Nazism as “occult based”. Where’s the evidence for that JMK? I’m aware of the theories..where’s your documented evidence?

”JMK - Again, the UNSC signed onto 1441 as “a last chance Resolution,” if they had any reservations about that, they should’ve removed that wording.” (JMK)
”Only in bizarro world, in the real world they went on record when they opposed the US UK action.” (GZ)
And there are still people who wonder why it’s difficult, even for the most patient of Conservatives, to discuss things with Liberals.

1441 was passed unanimously by the UNSC in November of 2002. That’s a fact, so why do you still appear to deny that?

It’s also a fact that the wording of that Resolution included the phrasing “Last Chance” Resolution, so it was not a case, as you claim that, “In stating that for them (the UK & the USA) the resolution was a last chance option they were in effect making their own resolution, separate from the UN.” The UNSC signed onto that as a “LAST CHANCE RESOLUTION” in November of 2002.

“Just prior to the invasion of Iraq, Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary Britain said he believed UN Resolution 1441 passed last November and others adopted before it were good enough under international law for the United States and Britain to disarm Iraq by force, Straw told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the parliament.”

The coalition had every right to use 1441 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq, especially in light of the fact that Iraq was deliberately “puffing itself up” as having stock piles of WMDs.

Contrary to your claim that, “there was scarcely any actual intelligence on the presence of WMD’s,” virtually ALL of the world’s Intelligence agencies (Italy's, the Czechs, the Brits, the CIA) believed that Saddam’s Iraq still had WMDs.
“There are no parallels between Christianity, Judaism and Islam.” (JMK)
“Ever here of the Inquisition? How about the crusades? The holocaust (no option for conversion there)?” (GZ)
While the first was a Medieval Theocratic policy and the second (the Crusades) was a military response to Muslim aggression in Southeastern Europe, the third (the Holocaust) has no links whatsoever to Christianity.

Again, you continue to repeat a most disgusting “blood libel.”

It’s difficult for me to even continue to engage you in discourse, given the incredible level of duplicity and animus you exhibit with that charge.

I’m an avowed anti-Christian. My morality is much closer to Nietzsche’s than Christ’s, but even I don’t engage in the kind of vile “blood libel” that you’ve routinely engaged in here.
In his book Three Popes and the Jews, the Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide looked critically at Pope Pious XII asking, “Could Pius have saved more lives by speaking out more forcefully? According to Lapide, the concentration camp prisoners did not want Pius to speak out openly (p. 247). As one jurist from the Nuremberg Trials said on WNBC in New York (Feb. 28, 1964), "Any words of Pius XII, directed against a madman like Hitler, would have brought on an even worse catastrophe... [and] accelerated the massacre of Jews and priests." (Ibid.)

“Yet Pius was not totally silent either. Lapide notes a book by the Jewish historian, Jenoe Levai, entitled, The Church Did Not Keep Silent (p. 256). He admits that everyone, including himself, could have done more. If we condemn Pius, then justice would demand condemning everyone else. He concludes by quoting from the Talmud that "whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he had preserved a whole world." With this he claims that Pius XII deserves a memorial forest of 860,000 trees in the Judean hills (pp. 268-9). It should be noted that six million Jews and three million Catholics were killed in the Holocaust.”

“We must remember that the Holocaust was also anti-Christian. After Hitler revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him. Even the famous Albert Einstein testified to that. According to the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine on page 38, Einstein said:

“Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...

“Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”

Knowing, as I’m sure you do, that so many millions of Catholics were also killed, that you continue to repeat one of the most disgusting, revolting “blood libels” of history, and a very extremist view, that “the holocaust was inspired by Christianity,” is more than a little troubling.

You ask for proof that Nazism was based in occultism, but Hitler’s well known and documented membership in the occult lodge (the Thule Gestalt) would seem to put the onus back on those who claim that there are ANY demonstrable “Christian links” to the Holocaust.” There are none.

The fact that the German people were overwhelmingly Christian isn’t such a link, any more than the fact that so many Jews were Communists links the Jews to the almost half a billion deaths attributed to the various Communist atrocities of the 20th Century.

It's hard not to feel dirty even engaging in such an exchange, but these radical and disgusting views (linking the Holocaust to Christianity) must be countered vigorously.

“As to dhimmitude I completely understand the term, you ought to realize by now that when we have these little discussions it’s inevitably true that the person walking away with a new understanding of a concept is you and not (GZ)
“The Dhimmi is the Arabic term that refers to its non-Islamic embracing population that has the ignominious dishonor of living in Islamic conquered lands. In a similar manner to the Jewish reference to a non-Jew as being a goy, so too the term dhimmi refers to non-Muslims. However unlike the Jewish term, goy, and much more important, the dhimmi is a distinctly subjugated second class non-citizen almost slave who is subjected to dictatorial deprivation of any legal and human rights since he is a non-Muslim permanent resident in a Muslim state.

”Dhimmi is also the name of a book written by Bat Ye'or, a pseudonym, of a woman who grew up in Egypt as a British citizen and observed first hand the Islamic treatment of non-Muslims. Based on serious research, Dhimmi was first published in French in 1971, translated into English in 1985, later into Hebrew and Russian, Dhimmi is a must reading for anyone seriously desiring an understanding of Middle-East politics and the rationale of the Arab mentality.

“The first part of the book describes the state of affairs of the dhimmi, the basis and development for dhimmitude in Islam, and the relationship of the jihad, the war to conquer territory for Islam to the status of dhimmi.

“Throughout earliest Islamic history, the conquered peoples by advancing Muslim armies were given the choice of either converting, being killed, or living as a conquered people, a dhimmi. These subjugated people were suspended in time and space, for dhimmitude meant being barely tolerated in your dispossessed land.

“Both Jews and Christians alike suffered the ignominious life of having their fate decided upon the whim of despotic rulers. Although a legal definition of the dhimmi exists, that they must pay various taxes and tolls, that they must live a second class life and give deference to their Muslim neighbors, much of their tragic existence depended on the whims of despotic rulers and frenzied Arab mobs who denied them even the little that was given to them through Islamic law.

“In 622 CE when Muhammad began his systematic conquering of pagan Arab populations and territories in the Arab desserts and peninsulas, he set up a precedent of conversion, death or servitude. Mixing war and religion, he utilized and abrogated relationships with non-Muslims to gain political and eventual territorial gains. A shrewd politician, Muhammad took advantage of non-belligerency pacts to attack and subjugate populations. In 628, after a long siege of Khaybar, lasting a month and a half, the inhabitants surrendered under terms of a treaty known as the dhimma. According to this agreement Muhammad allowed the Jews living there to continue to cultivate the land on the condition that they cede to him half of their produce, but he reserved the right to cancel the agreement and expel them whenever he desired. This became the prototype of all future subjugations. Hence making agreements and then breaking them to gain political gains became a hallmark of Muslim armies.

As the Muslims grew more powerful, their holy wars spread out beyond Arabia. The jihad became a war of conquest subject to a code which was the elimination of infidels. Truces were allowed, but never a lasting peace.

The jihad became a concept that divided the world into two separate groups. One was the dar al harab, the territory of war, and the other was the dar al Islam, the territory of Islam, which was the Muslim land where Islamic law reigns. Jihad is a normal state of being in the dar al harab which will only end with the conversion of the entire world to Islam.

“The concept of jihad was simple - conquering the world for the true religion, Islam, translated into forced conversions, killings, taking slaves, seizing properties. This method enriched the perpetrators of the jihad, paid for their armies and brought wealth to the Arab nations.

“Participation in jihad was obligatory, either by participation or by aiding in one of many manners.

“The manner in which the rules of dhimmitude were applied varied according to the political circumstances and the disposition of the ruler.

There were periods of tolerance which gave a small degree of security to the dhimmis. However the fanaticism which could be riled up by the clergy could change the situation in small time. If the local Muslim population became intolerant or jealous of the successes of the dhimmi, then a pogrom would ensue. Communities could find themselves evicted, women raped, exorbitant ransoms placed on them, children abducted and forced to convert, and in other cases mass murders of the dhimmi population was condoned.

“Rules would be formulated to deny the dhimmi due process of the law. Discriminatory and restrictive dress and behavior codes would be enacted and severely enforced to reduce the dhimmi into a state of despair and poverty. Dehumanization of the dhimmi was not uncommon, and generally the rule. Various forms of physical abuse were common.

“Many times distinctive dress was specified to identify a dhimmi that he would be unable to either mix with a Muslim or even walk in a Muslim area of a city. Other rules specified such demeaning dress codes as not wearing shoes or sandals, not using certain colors, wearing stars on their clothing. Dhimmis were often prohibited from working in many occupations. Even rules were made as to how a dhimmi could ride a mule to distinguish him from a Muslim.

“The non-observance of these rules would entail a severe beating. Often passing a Muslim on the wrong side would begin a beating that could leave a dhimmi mortally wounded. Since the dhimmis were denied the ability to testify against a Muslim, there was absolutely no recourse.”

http://www.jewishmag.com/57mag/dhimmi/dhimmi.

"You still never thanked me for explaining the concept of debt vs, deficit – but that’s another story." (GZ)
"Clinton NEVER reduced the DEBT, deficit spending was reduced during the latter part of his Presidency."

Sure enough, the DEBT grew every single year under Bill Clinton;

09/30/1993: $4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1994: $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/29/1995:
$4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1996: $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/30/1997: $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1998: $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1999: $5,656,270,901,615.43

09/29/2000: $5,674,178,209,886.86

Clearly the National Debt grew every year Clinton was in office.

You're welcome!

Wow three responses to my one little post, you’ve outdone yourself. Guess I again touched a nerve.

Where to begin…well let’s start at the end with the debt AGAIN because you still don’t understand what you’re talking about:

JMK - I showed YOU that you had mistaken the deficit for the debt, as in "Clinton NEVER reduced the DEBT, deficit spending was reduced during the latter part of his Presidency."

Sure enough, the DEBT grew every single year under Bill Clinton;
09/30/1993: $4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1994: $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/29/1995:
$4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1996: $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/30/1997: $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1998: $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1999: $5,656,270,901,615.43

09/29/2000: $5,674,178,209,886.86
Clearly the National Debt grew every year Clinton was in office.
You're welcome!

I already went through this at length with you in the “Edwards for President” thread. You can see it in the December Archives. In a nutshell you’re wrong because you’re wrong because you are only showing raw numbers here instead of correctly showing the debt as a percentage of GDP (funny how you have discussed it as a percentage of GDP for the current administration as a way of downplaying it – I wonder why you’re inconsistent? Either you are trying to obscure the facts using inconsistent methodology, which is unlike you, or you really don’t understand what you’re talking about – which is what is most likely the case.)
Anyway I’m reposting what I wrote then so you can again see how ridiculous you look when you make the claim above.
“There is some serious and funny irony – but the really funny and ironic part is that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. You yourself keep speaking about how important the rising GDP is in all of this. I’m really starting to get convinced that it’s because you read it on some website, because if you really understood the relationship between GDP, spending, the deficit/surplus, and the debt then you’d understand how stupid it is to claim that the U.S. National Debt was never trimmed.
You are only looking at the debt as total dollars, it needs to be examined as a percentage of GDP. When you examine it as a percentage of GDP it’s clear that Clinton and the Gingrich congress did pay down the debt and reverse the upward trend that started in the Reagan years. Here’s a handy graph: The National Debt as a Percent of Gross Domestic Product
Take a look, let the knowledge sink in. It’s pretty clear what the trends have been. And it’s also pretty clear who is confused here and it isn’t me is it? I think there’s a part coming up where you tell me it’s OK to admit when I’m wrong – should I expect a mea culpa?”

Now I’ll give you back to 1940 as a % of GDP:
1940 52.4%
1941 50.5%
1942 54.9%
1943 79.2%
1944 97.6%
1945 117.5%
1946 121.7%
1947 109.6%
1948 98.3%
1949 93.0%
1950 93.9%
1951 79.5%
1952 74.3%
1953 71.2%
1954 71.6%
1955 69.4%
1956 63.8%
1957 60.4%
1958 60.7%
1959 58.4%
1960 56.0%
1961 55.0%
1962 53.3%
1963 51.7%
1964 49.3%
1965 46.9%
1966 43.6%
1967 41.8%
1968 42.5%
1969 38.5%
1970 37.6%
1971 37.7%
1972 36.9%
1973 35.6%
1974 33.6%
1975 34.7%
1976 36.2%
1977 35.8%
1978 35.0%
1979 33.1%
1980 33.3%
1981 32.5%
1982 35.2%
1983 39.9%
1984 40.8%
1985 43.9%
1986 48.2%
1987 50.5%
1988 51.9%
1989 53.1%
1990 55.9%
1991 60.7%
1992 64.4%
1993 66.3%
1994 66.9%
1995 67.2%
1996 67.3%
1997 65.6%
1998 63.2%
1999 61.3%
2000 57.9%
2001 57.6%
2002 60.0%
2003 62.8%
2004 64.8%
2005 66.0%
2006 66.9%
As you can see the debt rose to it’s height following the close of WWII, as you would expect, then we spent the next 30 years paying it down. Then the debt rose under first Reagan, but more dramatically under Bush I. Then during the Clinton years it was reduced, only to rise again under Bush II. Now other places where you’ve been consistently wrong by confusing debt and deficit (it bears mentioning again here all in one place) is in terms of the reduction. You claimed, repeatedly, that the deficit had been cut in half. You were wrong the deficit has remained constant the last 4 years. The truth is that the growth of the debt as a percentage of GDP (not in overall dollars – that amount has continued to rise) has been reduced, not quite in half though. As you can see it grew by 2.8% from 2002 to 2003, 2% from 2003 to 2004, 1.2% from 2005 to 2005, and .9% from 2005 to 2006. That’s a small step in the right direction, but it amounts to putting on the brakes more than putting the car in reverse. Those are the facts JMK, you can blow wind all day but they won’t change.

Got it yet? Has it sunk through your skull? No? What should I expect from a guy who touted Israel’s debt to GDP ratio of 99.7% as a good thing in order to defend our current level of debt? Or Japan’s? Or Italy’s? It’s laughable. I don’t know what makes me laugh more, your choice of the Italian economy as an example par excellence or the fact that in copying and pasting from the right wing news blogs you don’t even notice that you’ve made such a huge statistical error. That kind of inconsistent modeling may be par for the course in an Anne Coulter work of fiction, but it isn’t acceptable in the real world. Try to make a presentation with those numbers, I forgot they don’t do that at the firehouse. Let me tell you what would happen if you submitted a report with that level of statistical inaccuracy for review, you’d be crucified. Any low level analyst or actuary would pick up on that and see it for what it was, an amateurish work of deception.

JMK - And there are still people who wonder why it’s difficult, even for the most patient of Conservatives, to discuss things with Liberals.

What’s funny is that you consider me a “liberal”, I myself abhor labels because they are so subjective. Just because I am not an advocate for every far right ideal as you seem to be consistently for hardly makes me a liberal. And the most patient of conservatives is another catch phrase from the blogs. If anyone has patience it’s me for answering your same dogmatic, repetitive posts again and again and again and again and again and again and again….

JMK - It’s also a fact that the wording of that Resolution included the phrasing “Last Chance” Resolution, so it was not a case, as you claim that, “In stating that for them (the UK & the USA) the resolution was a last chance option they were in effect making their own resolution, separate from the UN.” The UNSC signed onto that as a “LAST CHANCE RESOLUTION” in November of 2002.

Yes it is the case, I don’t care if the wording was “last chance before we turn Iraq into a sheet of nuclear fused glass”. Because if the UN decides not to enforce any given resolution or if the UN decides that the nation in question is complying with the resolution, or if the UN decides to change the terms of enforcement, and any member nations decide they disagree with the UN and are going to take their own separate action then those member nations who are acting apart from the UN are in effect forming their own separate resolutions. You cannot escape that no matter what you say. Again I ask why do you care? Why the need for UN validation?

JMK - “Just prior to the invasion of Iraq, Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary Britain said he believed UN Resolution 1441 passed last November and others adopted before it were good enough under international law for the United States and Britain to disarm Iraq by force, Straw told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the parliament.”

I suppose if the Chinese foreign minister made a public statement where he believed some action by China that we opposed was supported by international law, when we disagreed you’d be right there behind him as well right? Nope the fact is that “international” law means that the foreign secretary of any one nation does not decide or interpret it without a consensus.

JMK - Contrary to your claim that, “there was scarcely any actual intelligence on the presence of WMD’s,” virtually ALL of the world’s Intelligence agencies (Italy's, the Czechs, the Brits, the CIA) believed that Saddam’s Iraq still had WMDs.

How’s it contrary to my claim? I said there was scarcely any actual intelligence. I’m aware of what was believed through postering and feather puffing by Saddam, however if there was so much actual intelligence on what was there why don’t you show me an example?

JMK - While the first was a Medieval Theocratic policy and the second (the Crusades) was a military response to Muslim aggression in Southeastern Europe, the third (the Holocaust) has no links whatsoever to Christianity.

You are priceless the first (the inquisition) you write off as a “Medieval Theocratic policy” you are aware of the meaning of the word ‘Theocratic” aren’t you? It was a medieval policy of religious persecution sanctioned by the catholic church. Isn’t that what we’re discussing? Or do you believe the inquisition was fun as depicted in the Mel Brooks movie?
The crusades is he fault of the muslims. Time for you to read up on your history, this wasn’t just about the Moors in Spain, it was about possessing the holy lands. Killing a Moslem wasn’t a sin, but murdering a Christian was. But there’s no paraalel there..nah just a simple military action in response to insurgents..lol you are priceless.
And the holocaust has no links to Christianity. It wasn’t endorsed by the church, however the religious differences as well as the cultural differences are part of the reason it occurred. You want to overlook the fact that religion overshadowed all of these events.

JMK - Again, you continue to repeat a most disgusting “blood libel.”
It’s difficult for me to even continue to engage you in discourse, given the incredible level of duplicity and animus you exhibit with that charge.
I’m an avowed anti-Christian. My morality is much closer to Nietzsche’s than Christ’s, but even I don’t engage in the kind of vile “blood libel” that you’ve routinely engaged in here.

If it’s difficult for you, imagine how difficult it is for me, since you routinely “forget” facts and misuse statistics to skew results. There’s no duplicity or animus in anything I’ve said. You’re offended? I’M OFFENDED that you even make that statement about me. “Blood libel”? If anyone is guilty of blood libel it’s you with regard to muslims. All I’ve done is point out parallels in other religions – mostly the Christian religion. I wouldn’t have thought you’d take such a simplistic view of my posts. I’ve never claimed anything that warrants the use of that term. I don’ think any Christians except the most radical fringe elements calling themselves Christian endorse the holocaust, or for that matter the inquisition and crusades. However to deny the religious aspect to any of these events amounts to burying your head in the sand. Events do not happen in a vacuum particularly when they occur in a time period when the church had much more influence.

JMK - Knowing, as I’m sure you do, that so many millions of Catholics were also killed, that you continue to repeat one of the most disgusting, revolting “blood libels” of history, and a very extremist view, that “the holocaust was inspired by Christianity,” is more than a little troubling.

In part it was, if you’re going to use quotes then please use an actual one. What I said was: “I never said Christianity is evil because it inspired the holocaust. I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity.” That doesn’t mean that it was condoned by the church or by all Christians – there’s a difference. An important difference. There were certainly many other factors but religion was one of them.

JMK - You ask for proof that Nazism was based in occultism, but Hitler’s well known and documented membership in the occult lodge (the Thule Gestalt) would seem to put the onus back on those who claim that there are ANY demonstrable “Christian links” to the Holocaust.” There are none.

No – it would seem to put the onus on you to document your claim that the Nazi party was occult based. I’ll help you out. First off Hitler’s “well known and documented membership in the occult lodge (the Thule Gestalt)” is inaccurate. There is no documented membership, the accepted consensus is that he was never a member.
“The Thule Society was founded August 17, 1918 by Rudolf von Sebottendorff, a German occultist”, that much is true. Here are some more factoids for you:
“Von Sebottendorff later claimed that he originally intended the Thule Society to be a vehicle for promoting his own occultist theories, but that the Germanenorden pressed him to emphasize political, nationalist and anti-Semitic themes. Since this claim was made while the Nazis were in power and von Sebottendorff had little to gain by denying anti-Semitism, it may well be true.”
“The followers of the Thule Society were, by von Sebottendorff's own admission, little interested in his occulist theories. They were more interested in racism and combatting Jews and Communists.”
“In 1919, the Thule Society's Anton Drexler, who had developed links between the Society and various extreme right workers' organizations in Munich, together with Karl Harrer established the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), or German Workers Party. Adolf Hitler joined this party in 1919. By April 1, 1920, the DAP had been reconstituted as the National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), or National Socialist German Workers Party (generally known as the "Nazi Party").
Von Sebottendorff had by then left the Thule Society, and never joined the DAP or the Nazi party. It has been alleged that other members of the Thule Society were later prominent in Nazi Germany: the list includes Dietrich Eckart, Gottfried Feder, Hans Frank, Rudolf Hess and Alfred Rosenberg. (Eckart, who coached Hitler on his public speaking skills, had Mein Kampf dedicated to him.) Historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (1985: 149, 217-225) has described such membership rolls as 'spurious' and 'fanciful', noting that Feder, Rosenberg, Eckart and Hess were never more than guests to whom the Thule Society extended hospitality during the Bavarian revolution of 1918. It has also been claimed that Adolf Hitler himself was a member (Angebert 1974: 9). There is no evidence to support this claim; on the contrary, the evidence shows that he never attended a meeting, as attested to by Johannes Hering's diary of Society meetings (Johannes Hering, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Thule-Gesellschaft, typescript dated 21 June 1939, Bundesarchiv Koblenz, NS26/865, cit. in Goodrick-Clarke 1992: 201). It is quite clear that Hitler himself had little interest in, and made little time for, "esoteric" matters.”

Now you may be confusing Hitler with Heinrich Himmler in terms of his obsession with the occult. Himmler had a great interest in it and you could make the case that he saw an occult connection betwenn Thule, and the Aryan race, etc., however Hitler was not, unless it could be used to further his agenda.

JMK - It's hard not to feel dirty even engaging in such an exchange, but these radical and disgusting views (linking the Holocaust to Christianity) must be countered vigorously.

Here’s a hose. Go outside and spray the filth off you, while you’re at it try and spray some of the ignorance off as well. When you’re in a more receptive state come back inside and we can continue.
Here’s a site that pretty well sums up my feelings: http://www.kimel.net/christi.html.
His conclusion puts it well: “Christianity does not bear a historical responsibility for the Holocaust, but because of the anti-Semitism it fostered, Christianity bears a moral responsibility for the supporting roles or inaction of the Christian population during the Shoah, and for the general indifference and silence of the Christian Churches.”

That’s not a “blood libel” it’s just reality.

As to the quoted passages on dhimmitude I again point you to what I’ve already cited above. Again I don’t endorse it in anyway, but I’ve shown that you’ve shown an exaggerated view of what it is and what it was. The reality is far different, still distasteful but not as extreme.
One clear example was how you made it sound as if dhimmis were being killed at will out of hand by their muslim tormentors, the reality was that conquered people subjected to dhimmi status as an alternative to death. I’m not saying I like that either – but it’s a clear difference.
The reason I’m the one educating you and not the other way around is clear to see if anyone bothers to look. If you examine my examples you can see that they are not usually so extremely one-sided, more often than not they aren’t praising a situation, like the status of the dhimmie, just showing that there’s a grey area. A less extreme reality.
It is a difficult job keeping you informed, and sadly I’m apparently not very good at it since you keep forgetting your lessons, but I’ll keep trying.

The DEBT is a specific number, NOT a percentage of GDP. The national debt as a percentage of GDP is a comparative number - the debt ratio.

We give the debt ratio as a percentage of GDP for comparison reasons - America's is now about 67% of GDP, France's about 66%, Germany's 68%, Australia's is around 14%, Canada's about 65%, England's about 43% Italy's and Israel's around 100% of their GDPs.

BUT the national debt is a spcific number NOT that ratio used for comparisons.

You claimed "the national debt was reduced during the Clinton administration," and that statement is incorrect.

The debt, as shown, INCREASED every single year of the Clinton administration, as it's had for nearly all of the last three decades or more, because we've engaged in deficit spending over all of that time.

The statement, "The debt decreased during the Clinton administration," is as clearly demonstrably wrong as is the statement you started this all off with - claiming that ALL the other positive economic indicators (low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, rising personal incomes and a growing GDP) aside, the current national debt (NOT an economic indicator) makes the current economy a poor one.

Just as the actual national debt rose every year of the Clinton administration, our current level of debt (though not optimal) is NOT "disastrous," nor even significantly higher than most other nations.

Very few industrialized nations have a national debt rate of less than 50% of GDP.

That's why another of your statements, that "If the federal government were a household, we'd be in foreclosure and we'd all be facing eviction," is also demonstrably UNTRUE as I showed you with both examples of actual household debt rates and proof that virtually all governments engage in deficit spending and can do so with relative impunity due to their having many wyas of eradicating debt - increasing revenues, floating more government-backed bonds, etc.

The statement "...and we'd all be facing eviction," claims that (1) our national debt is unmanagable and completely out-of-whack relative to other nations and (2) on the verge of bankrupting the Republic, when neither is true.

Our comparable national debt (debt to GDP ratio) is not significantly higher than most other nations, nor is the servicing of that debt (appx 5% per year) is not unmanagable.

Enough said.
"I suppose if the Chinese foreign minister made a public statement where he believed some action by China that we opposed was supported by international law, when we disagreed you’d be right there behind him as well right?" (GZ)

Another solopsism?

There is no overriding legal or moral authority to "international law."

Moreover, your analogy is not apt.

Hardly surprising, given your semantic tactics throughout the thread.

Now an apt analogy is that if China were able to get the entire UNSC to sign onto a "last chance" Resolution, and then when it came time to put up, the UNSC changed its mind and backed off, indeed China would have the "moral authority" and the UN's acknowledgment, if not ultimate approval.

And again, when push came to shove, China wouldn't need the UN's approval.

What would America's options be?

We wouldn't have many!

Hell, we signed onto the initial Resolution that China said it would enforce and now has gone ahead and enforced on its own.

Unless we could get the entire rest of the world to face down China (a daunting proposition and doubtful it would work) we'd be left with some empty posturing and UN "condemnations."
“I never said Christianity is evil because it inspired the holocaust. I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity.”

That's not merely an excercise in semantics, but in disingenuousness as well.

Because in that above line you argue with a statement of your own, not mine, as I’ve never claimed you said “Christianity is evil.” I said, “Nowhere and at no time did Christians/Christianity or Jews/Judaism require members of other religions to put wear insignias over their shops that would designate that status,” and you responded with, “That’s right the Nazis took away their shops and made them wear the Stars on their chest.”

In that statement you made cleat that you associated Nazism with a religion, when I’ve given you demonstrable proofs that Nazism had no religious, certainly no “Christian” component.

I'd hope you'd agree that it’s kind of doubtful that the Nazis would’ve slaughtered 3 million Catholics along with those 6 million Jews had they had a “Christian component.”

You've clearly gotten offended that I called you on a number of foolish and unsupportable economic statements you made in the Edwards thread.

I don't know why. I merely pointed out the fact that they were wrong and not borne out by the facts.

They were wrong when you initially made them and they're still wrong now. Semantics don't change the facts.

JMK - The DEBT is a specific number, NOT a percentage of GDP. The national debt as a percentage of GDP is a comparative number - the debt ratio.
We give the debt ratio as a percentage of GDP for comparison reasons - America's is now about 67% of GDP, France's about 66%, Germany's 68%, Australia's is around 14%, Canada's about 65%, England's about 43% Italy's and Israel's around 100% of their GDPs.
BUT the national debt is a spcific number NOT that ratio used for comparisons.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for me economic modeling is not so simplistic. Neither is statistical for that matter. Why do you think we use the debt ratio for comparative purposes? Think about it, go for a walk and come back.

Back? Got it? No? OK, I’ll help you out. We use the debt ratio in order to suppress the bias due to differences in consumer debt levels, or in other words to level the playing field in order to make meaningful comparisons between to different sets of data. Those sets can be different nations, or different periods.

Your model assumes that salaries, inflation, profits, etc. have been a flat line going back to the foundation of this country. No? You disagree? If you disagree then you’re wrong again, if you do not make comparisons of the debt as a percentage of GDP then you the numbers become meaningless. You like statistics – here are the raw numbers for debt without any comparison to GDP going back to 1791. Examine them and then explain to me how you can make any meaningful comparisons, any type of trend analysis at all without placing these numbers into context.

September 30, 2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
September 30, 2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
September 30, 2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
September 30, 2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
September 30, 2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
September 30, 2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
September 30, 1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
September 30, 1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
September 30, 1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
September 30, 1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
September 29, 1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
September 30, 1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
September 30, 1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
September 30, 1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
September 30, 1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
September 28, 1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
September 29, 1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
September 30, 1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
September 30, 1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
September 30, 1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
December 31, 1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
December 31, 1984 1,662,966,000,000.00
December 31, 1983 1,410,702,000,000.00
December 31, 1982 1,197,073,000,000.00
December 31, 1981 1,028,729,000,000.00
December 31, 1980 930,210,000,000.00
December 31, 1979 845,116,000,000.00
December 29, 1978 789,207,000,000.00
December 30, 1977 718,943,000,000.00
December 31, 1976 653,544,000,000.00
December 31, 1975 576,649,000,000.00
December 31, 1974 492,665,000,000.00
December 31, 1973 469,898,039,554.70
December 29, 1972 449,298,066,119.00
December 31, 1971 424,130,961,959.95
December 31, 1970 389,158,403,690.26
December 31, 1969 368,225,581,254.41
December 31, 1968 358,028,625,002.91
December 29, 1967 344,663,009,745.18
December 30, 1966 329,319,249,366.68
December 31, 1965 320,904,110,042.04
December 31, 1964 317,940,472,718.38
December 31, 1963 309,346,845,059.17
December 31, 1962 303,470,080,489.27
December 29, 1961 296,168,761,214.92
December 30, 1960 290,216,815,241.68
December 31, 1959 290,797,771,717.63
December 31, 1958 282,922,423,583.87
December 31, 1957 274,897,784,290.72
December 31, 1956 276,627,527,996.11
December 30, 1955 280,768,553,188.96
December 31, 1954 278,749,814,391.33
December 31, 1953 275,168,120,129.39
June 30, 1953 266,071,061,638.57
June 30, 1952 259,105,178,785.43
June 29, 1951 255,221,976,814.93
June 30, 1950 257,357,352,351.04
June 30, 1949 252,770,359,860.33
June 30, 1948 252,292,246,512.99
June 30, 1947 258,286,383,108.67
June 28, 1946 269,422,099,173.26
June 30, 1945 258,682,187,409.93
June 30, 1944 201,003,387,221.13
June 30, 1943 136,696,090,329.90
June 30, 1942 72,422,445,116.22
June 30, 1941 48,961,443,535.71
June 29, 1940 42,967,531,037.68
June 30, 1939 40,439,532,411.11
June 30, 1938 37,164,740,315.45
June 30, 1937 36,424,613,732.29
June 30, 1936 33,778,543,493.73
June 29, 1935 28,700,892,624.53
June 30, 1934 27,053,141,414.48
June 30, 1933 22,538,672,560.15
June 30, 1932 19,487,002,444.13
June 30, 1931 16,801,281,491.71
June 30, 1930 16,185,309,831.43
June 29, 1929 16,931,088,484.10
June 30, 1928 17,604,293,201.43
June 30, 1927 18,511,906,931.85
June 30, 1926 19,643,216,315.19
June 30, 1925 20,516,193,887.90
June 30, 1924 21,250,812,989.49
June 30, 1923 22,349,707,365.36
June 30, 1922 22,963,381,708.31
June 30, 1921 23,977,450,552.54
July 1, 1920 25,952,456,406.16
July 1, 1919 27,390,970,113.12
July 1, 1918 14,592,161,414.00
July 1, 1917 5,717,770,279.52
July 1, 1916 3,609,244,262.16
July 1, 1915 3,058,136,873.16
July 1, 1914 2,912,499,269.16
July 1, 1913 2,916,204,913.66
July 1, 1912 2,868,373,874.16
July 1, 1911 2,765,600,606.69
July 1, 1910 2,652,665,838.04
July 1, 1909 2,639,546,241.04
July 1, 1908 2,626,806,271.54
July 1, 1907 2,457,188,061.54
July 1, 1906 2,337,161,839.04
July 1, 1905 2,274,615,063.84
July 1, 1904 2,264,003,585.14
July 1, 1903 2,202,464,781.89
July 1, 1902 2,158,610,445.89
July 1, 1901 2,143,326,933.89
July 1, 1900 2,136,961,091.67
07/01/1899 1,991,927,306.92
07/01/1898 1,796,531,995.90
07/01/1897 1,817,672,665.90
07/01/1896 1,769,840,323.40
07/01/1895 1,676,120,983.25
07/01/1894 1,632,253,636.68
07/01/1893 1,545,985,686.13
07/01/1892 1,588,464,144.63
07/01/1891 1,545,996,591.61
07/01/1890 1,552,140,204.73
07/01/1889 1,619,052,922.23
07/01/1888 1,692,858,984.58
07/01/1887 1,657,602,592.63
07/01/1886 1,775,063,013.78
07/01/1885 1,863,964,873.14
07/01/1884 1,830,528,923.57
07/01/1883 1,884,171,728.07
07/01/1882 1,918,312,994.03
07/01/1881 2,069,013,569.58
07/01/1880 2,120,415,370.63
07/01/1879 2,349,567,482.04
07/01/1878 2,256,205,892.53
07/01/1877 2,205,301,392.10
07/01/1876 2,180,395,067.15
07/01/1875 2,232,284,531.95
07/01/1874 2,251,690,468.43
07/01/1873 2,234,482,993.20
07/01/1872 2,253,251,328.78
07/01/1871 2,353,211,332.32
07/01/1870 2,480,672,427.81
07/01/1869 2,588,452,213.94
07/01/1868 2,611,687,851.19
07/01/1867 2,678,126,103.87
07/01/1866 2,773,236,173.69
07/01/1865 2,680,647,869.74
07/01/1864 1,815,784,370.57
07/01/1863 1,119,772,138.63
07/01/1862 524,176,412.13
07/01/1861 90,580,873.72
07/01/1860 64,842,287.88
07/01/1859 58,496,837.88
07/01/1858 44,911,881.03
07/01/1857 28,699,831.85
07/01/1856 31,972,537.90
07/01/1855 35,586,956.56
07/01/1854 42,242,222.42
07/01/1853 59,803,117.70
07/01/1852 66,199,341.71
07/01/1851 68,304,796.02
07/01/1850 63,452,773.55
07/01/1849 63,061,858.69
07/01/1848 47,044,862.23
07/01/1847 38,826,534.77
07/01/1846 15,550,202.97
07/01/1845 15,925,303.0l
07/01/1844 23,461,652.50
07/01/1843 32,742,922.00
01/01/1843 20,201,226.27
01/01/1842 13,594,480.73
01/01/1841 5,250,875.54
01/01/1840 3,573,343.82
01/01/1839 10,434,221.14
01/01/1838 3,308,124.07
01/01/1837 336,957.83
01/01/1836 37,513.05
01/01/1835 33,733.05
01/01/1834 4,760,082.08
01/01/1833 7,001,698.83
01/01/1832 24,322,235.18
01/01/1831 39,123,191.68
01/01/1830 48,565,406.50
01/01/1829 58,421,413.67
01/01/1828 67,475,043.87
01/01/1827 73,987,357.20
01/01/1826 81,054,059.99
01/01/1825 83,788,432.71
01/01/1824 90,269,777.77
01/01/1823 90,875,877.28
01/01/1822 93,546,676.98
01/01/1821 89,987,427.66
01/01/1820 91,015,566.15
01/01/1819 95,529,648.28
01/01/1818 103,466,633.83
01/01/1817 123,491,965.16
01/01/1816 127,334,933.74
01/01/1815 99,833,660.15
01/01/1814 81,487,846.24
01/01/1813 55,962,827.57
01/01/1812 45,209,737.90
01/01/1811 48,005,587.76
01/01/1810 53,173,217.52
01/01/1809 57,023,192.09
01/01/1808 65,196,317.97
01/01/1807 69,218,398.64
01/01/1806 75,723,270.66
01/01/1805 82,312,150.50
01/01/1804 86,427,120.88
01/01/1803 77,054,686.40
01/01/1802 80,712,632.25
01/01/1801 83,038,050.80
01/01/1800 82,976,294.35
01/01/1799 78,408,669.77
01/01/1798 79,228,529.12
01/01/1797 82,064,479.33
01/01/1796 83,762,172.07
01/01/1795 80,747,587.39
01/01/1794 78,427,404.77
01/01/1793 80,358,634.04
01/01/1792 77,227,924.66
01/01/1791 75,463,476.52

Brain smoking yet? IT CAN’T BE DONE. If you try to compare the raw numbers your results will be meaningless.

JMK - You claimed "the national debt was reduced during the Clinton administration," and that statement is incorrect.

Nope, clearly it was correct, you just lack the capacity or willingness to understand how analysts compile and compare statistical data. But it’s not like I’m a lone wolf here, there’s a general consensus that Clinton and the congress reduced the debt. The only naysayers are a few guys clever enough to build models that hide their bias well enough so that guys like you find exactly what you’re looking for as long as you don’t dig too deep.

JMK - Very few industrialized nations have a national debt rate of less than 50% of GDP.
And? SO? Does that mean we should be aspiring to the stellar economies of Japan, Italy and Israel that you keep propping up as success stories?

JMK - That's why another of your statements, that "If the federal government were a household, we'd be in foreclosure and we'd all be facing eviction," is also demonstrably UNTRUE as I showed you with both examples of actual household debt rates and proof that virtually all governments engage in deficit spending and can do so with relative impunity due to their having many wyas of eradicating debt - increasing revenues, floating more government-backed bonds, etc.

You are hilarious – I think I told you about a dozen times now that statement was hyperbole on my part, and a bit of wit not to be taken seriously, it was done for dramatic effect, as can be seen if anyone actually reads it in context. (All of which I’ve said at least a dozen times as well). I’ve also found it amusing that you cling to that as your “win” because you think you can hold my feet to the fire over that statement somehow. It’s laughable. Why don’t you spend the time discussing something of real substance, like an analysis of the great things going on in the italian economy and your ten step plan to bring that success here to america.

JMK - Enough said.

LOL – right…guess you got tired of regurgitating the same sentence ten ways till Tuesday? Repetition doesn’t make you right. It’s pretty clear that you have absolutely no concept of how to understand complex financial modeling, so please do us all a favor and stop discussing stuff that’s way out of your league.

JMK - Another solopsism?

Don’t you mean solipsism? That word of the day calendar is getting a lot of use isn’t it? But you ought to make sure you get the spelling down before you tear off the page.

JMK - There is no overriding legal or moral authority to "international law."
Moreover, your analogy is not apt.

Really? Here’s your statement:
JMK - “Just prior to the invasion of Iraq, Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary Britain said he believed UN Resolution 1441 passed last November and others adopted before it were good enough under international law for the United States and Britain to disarm Iraq by force, Straw told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the parliament.”

And my analogy:
"I suppose if the Chinese foreign minister made a public statement where he believed some action by China that we opposed was supported by international law, when we disagreed you’d be right there behind him as well right?" (GZ)”

Seems apt to me….let’s see where you go with this…

JMK - Now an apt analogy is that if China were able to get the entire UNSC to sign onto a "last chance" Resolution, and then when it came time to put up, the UNSC changed its mind and backed off, indeed China would have the "moral authority" and the UN's acknowledgment, if not ultimate approval.
And again, when push came to shove, China wouldn't need the UN's approval.

All you’ve done is fill in the details on my analogy..I guess you missed the point. My point was to ask whether you’d be ok with the situation if China did something similar to what we did, in opposition to the UN and the US. I never claimed the US or China neede the UN’s approval – you are the one who keeps trying to use the UN to justify our actions, not I.

JMK - What would America's options be?
We wouldn't have many!
Hell, we signed onto the initial Resolution that China said it would enforce and now has gone ahead and enforced on its own.
Unless we could get the entire rest of the world to face down China (a daunting proposition and doubtful it would work) we'd be left with some empty posturing and UN "condemnations."

Thank you again Mr. Obvious. The point however was how YOU would feel about it, not whether China needed the UN’s permission. Obviously neither the US or China needs the UN’s approval for an action. From what you’ve said it seems you’d be all for China pursuing it’s sovereign rights against US wishes, and my question was whether you’d feel they were justified in using UN sanctions to validate their position even if the UN disagreed with China’s interpretation (and the US did as well.) Sounds as if on paper you would condone it, although I have to say I doubt you would if it really happened. At least on paper you’re consistent…consistently wrong. The correct answer is that while China has a right to do as it wishes as a sovereign nation, the same as the US, it does not have the right to create reality anymore than the US does. If the UN disagreed with China’s interpretation of a UN resolution and China decided to enforce their interpretation and terms over objections from the UN then they are no more able to use the UN sanctions as a moral equalizer than the US is.

JMK - Hardly surprising, given your semantic tactics throughout the thread.

As to this, my semantic tactics consist of good grammar and logical presentation. They also include correcting you on definition, usage and context where applicable. Sorry you find those concepts unpalatable.

JMK - As for your view of the "Christian link to the Holocaust," again, I've shown you that 3 million Catholic were murdered by the Nazis, that the Pope (Pious XII) saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from slaughter and openly opposed the Third Reich, and that should not only explain my antipathy for your viewpoint clear enough, but should also demonstrate the factual flaws of your argument.

You act as if I accuse all Christians of being responsible for the holocaust. You have a real problem in understanding fine points of distinction don’t you? I think individual acts like the one you cited are great. I also think you need to be clear on what the holocaust really was. Of course the Nazis killed many people of all types, however when discussing the holocaust we are discussing the systematic eradication of a specific group of people separated by religion and ethnicity, the Jewish people. That’s pretty clear. You don’t hear a lament for the plight of the great Christian holocaust – because there wasn’t one. Christians were killed however the purpose was a systematic elimination of the Jewish people.

There were obviously many factors that combined to create the situation where that could occur. Sever economic hardship following WWI, a lost sense of nationalism rekindled, etc. We both know what they were. What you won’t acknowledge is that one component of it was an underlying dislike/distrust of jews. This most definitely included a religious component. If you really believe Hitler forced the german people to do what they did then you’re blind to what really happened. He was a catalyst, and maybe without him it never would have happened. However what Hitler, Himmler, Goering, etc were able to do together was turn the key in the german people to unite them in a feeling of superiority, something that was probably always there in a lot of them.
Don’t mistake what I’m saying as laying this all at the feet of Christianity, I merely said that it has it’s part to play.

JMK - In comparing the Holocaust (a secular atrocity) to dhimmitude, you are clearly wrong and on the other two - the Crusades (a war against Muslim aggression into southeastern Europe), there's no comparison to dhimmitude, and while the Inquisition (a terrible policy perpetrated by a now non-existant Medieval theocracy), is the closest, it's still a very imperfect comparison and worse yet, it compares modern Islam to a Medieval society!

I compare the atrocities in the holocaust (which are partially due to a warped Christian tradition), and the atrocities in the Crusades (which was a religious war to keep the holy lands out of the hands of non-christians among other things) to the atrocities you lay at the feet of dhimmitude. I compare the medieval Inquisition as well because the extreme dhimmitude you discuss existed mostly in the past. Radical terrorists might behead non-muslims on tv for effect, however there are no “dhimmies” existing today, ready to be killed at any moment.
As to the “perfect analogy” try to find me one, they don’t exist.

JMK - If you or anyone else look through this thread, it's clear to see that I've never gotten personal with you, nor made any disparaging remarks, because I've been able to rely solely on the facts.

You did get personal in the other thread, and I’m a wiseass. If you can’t handle that I’m sorry. I find it entertaining to post jibes when you make some of your more ridiculous assertions. And if your “facts” were a raft and you were stranded at sea you’d have drowned long ago.

JMK - That's not been the case for yourself and that's only because you've insisted on trying to use semantics to cover up the obvious flaws in your arguments.

And see I find that statement personally insulting. I don’t mind jokes, but accusing me of not having the facts on my side and instead using semantics is insulting and laughable. You’ve one this before though. Usually when you’re losing an argument because I’ve actually taken the time to knock down your fictional constructs however many times you erect them, there comes a point where you accuse me of making semantic arguments and engaging in personal attacks.

If anyone is engaged in semantics it’s you. Why do you insist on trying to prove that UN resolution 1441 justifies our actions? If it’s true that we don’t need the UN for approval (and I agree we don’t) then why insist on trying to prove through little semantic arguments that the UN “technically” did approve, even if they disapproved officially. If anything is an issue of semantics that is. I’m just trying to cut through all of that.

JMK - An example would be, your statment, “I never said Christianity is evil because it inspired the holocaust. I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity.”
That's not merely an excercise in semantics, but in disingenuousness as well.
Because in that above line you argue with a statement of your own, not mine, as I’ve never claimed you said “Christianity is evil.” I said, “Nowhere and at no time did Christians/Christianity or Jews/Judaism require members of other religions to put wear insignias over their shops that would designate that status,” and you responded with, “That’s right the Nazis took away their shops and made them wear the Stars on their chest.”

Dude, can you at last attempt to show things in context? Here it is IN CONTEXT:
You said:
JMK - Knowing, as I’m sure you do, that so many millions of Catholics were also killed, that you continue to repeat one of the most disgusting, revolting “blood libels” of history, and a very extremist view, that “the holocaust was inspired by Christianity,” is more than a little troubling.

Then I said:
“In part it was, if you’re going to use quotes then please use an actual one. What I said was: “I never said Christianity is evil because it inspired the holocaust. I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity.” That doesn’t mean that it was condoned by the church or by all Christians – there’s a difference. An important difference. There were certainly many other factors but religion was one of them. “

I wasn’t arguing with my own statement, I was correcting you when you claimed that I said “the holocaust was inspired by Christianity” Perhaps there’s someplace else you believe I uttered that quote…if so please show me or stop trying to obscure what I’m really saying. (That would be another example of using semantics JMK, don’t they have examples on the vocabulary calendar?)

JMK - You've clearly gotten offended that I called you on a number of foolish and unsupportable economic statements you made in the Edwards thread.

No, you wanna know the truth? I was disappointed that you never responded after I so handedly smacked you down in the Edwards thread. I don’t think there’s been such a cut and dry example of you showing your utter lack of understanding of economic principles and modeling in a long time and I was sad that it wasn’t showcased for more people to see. I do thank you for bringing it back to the front page though. I think it’s important that anyone who actually read one of your posts on the debt and thought to themselves “yeah that makes a lot of sense” gets an accurate picture and not only knows that your position is wrong but more importantly understands why you are wrong. It’s an added bonus that you just dig yourself in deeper by refusing to acknowledge the obvious. I know you have to realize your error regarding the debt to GDP ratio now, after all you’re not stupid (as much as I like to kid you about it), just thick headed. The only reason you refuse to admit your error must be a misplaced sense of pride, or a refusal to remove your blinders and see something that isn’t part of your preferred reality. I don’t think you’re morally corrupt enough to intentionally mislead anyone.

JMK - They were wrong when you initially made them and they're still wrong now. Semantics don't change the facts.

You ought to make arrangements to have that quote carved on your headstone.

The national debt rose from just over $4 Trillion when William J. Clinton took office in January of 1993 to just over 5,674,178,209,886.86 $5.7 Trillion when he left office in January 2001.

It did NOT decrease over the course of even a single year during that entire period.

There are a very few, an extremely small number of pundits (none economists) who use the debt ratio (debt as a percentage of GDP) and the national debt (the actual number, or size of the debt itself) interchangeably and they are demonstratively wrong.

The two are NOT interchangeable at all.

The national debt is ONLY the actual numerical value of the national debt, while the debt ratio is a figure (debt to GDP) used for comparisons between nations only!

And your comparing the current level of U.S. national debt to an individual household wasn’t mere “hyperbole,” as hyperbole must be based in some realistic notion taken to an extreme.

The statement you made implied that the debt burden (66% of GDP with a 5% annual debt servicing cost) was ruinous as it now stands and that statement is not merely “hyperbole,” it’s merely wrong.

But your primary objection (that this is not a great economy despite all the traditional economic indicators being extremely positive, because of the national debt) is even more wrong.

The economy is measured by specific economic indicators, unemployment rates, inflation rates, interest rates, GDP growth, increasing/decreasing wage rates, etc.

EVERY single one of those indicators is incredibly positive! We have near record low unemployment, low inflation (2.4%), low interest rates, rising wage rates and strong GDP growth...and no Tech Bubble mirage, like the one responsible for the gossamer “great economy” of the late 1990s. This one’s for real.

While I’d like to see the national debt closer to 50% of GDP there isn’t a (sane) soul alive who’d dare argue in favor of eliminating the national debt!

That would be insane!!!

Governments can pay down their debts in so many different ways that it’s not advisable for an industrialized nation to have a debt ratio of less than somewhere around 50% of GDP. That would be fiscally imprudent.




“I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity.” (GZ)


That’s NOT a rebuke of my statement, “Knowing, as I’m sure you do, that so many millions of Catholics were also killed, that you continue to repeat...that “the holocaust was inspired by Christianity.”

My statement correctly implies that you’ve offered no evidence of any link between Hitler’s Third Reich and Christianity.

Hitler was not a practicing Christian.

Nazism was built on a Nordic mythology.

The view that “Nazism was inspired by Christianity,” (in part or whole doesn’t matter), is as absurd as the view that “Communism was inspired by Judaism,” (again, in part or whole doesn’t matter) – both views are wrong.

The fact that many Christian Germans were Nazis, while many Jewish Germans and Russians were Communists does not implicate either religion in those abhorrent ideologies.

JMK - The national debt rose from just over $4 Trillion when William J. Clinton took office in January of 1993 to just over 5,674,178,209,886.86 $5.7 Trillion when he left office in January 2001.

Yes and the when the debt is correctly viewed as a percentage of GDP the respective figures are:
66.3% in 1993 and 57.6% in 2001. Now were back at 66.9% in 2006.

JMK - It did NOT decrease over the course of even a single year during that entire period.

Not in terms of raw numbers, of course it’s incorrect to view it in terms of raw numbers. The economy does not take place inside of a vacuum. You can’t isolate the economy while you pay down the debt. As GDP rises additional debt is incurred proportional to GDP, a certain level of debt is necessary to fund growth, we’re concerned with the additional debt load that is not helping to grow GDP.

It’s really pretty simple, if you’ve maxed out your credit cards you have to pay down your bills before you can borrow more. Of course as you pay them down you incur additional expenses which you may have to finance. Hopefully you bring in more money as the years progress do in part to inflation, but also do to greater success in whatever business you practice. So your GDP rises, as you pay down your debt. So there will be points where your overall debt remains static in a strictly dollar for dollar sense, however when viewed from your overall position it is shrinking relative to your income.

JMK - There are a very few, an extremely small number of pundits (none economists) who use the debt ratio (debt as a percentage of GDP) and the national debt (the actual number, or size of the debt itself) interchangeably and they are demonstratively wrong.

Anyone who uses them interchangeably is wrong. That’s why you are wrong, you use one in one breath to justify the current level of debt (you use the ratio) and another in another breath to condemn the Clinton years (you use the raw numbers). You switch back and forth as it suits you. I’m consistent, so are any believable economists. Your declaration that no economists use the two terms interchangeably is accurate but misleading. I never claimed they use them interchangeably. What I did claim (and what is true by the way) is that real economists use debt as a percentage of GDP when they want to analyze relative debt over an extended period. That’s why economists agree that the debt was paid down during the Clinton years, because real economists (not blogosphere hacks) understand their terms.

JMK - The national debt is ONLY the actual numerical value of the national debt, while the debt ratio is a figure (debt to GDP) used for comparisons between nations only!

Wrong again. But hey you’re certainly tenacious in your ignorance.

JMK - And your comparing the current level of U.S. national debt to an individual household wasn’t mere “hyperbole,” as hyperbole must be based in some realistic notion taken to an extreme.

For someone who routinely engages in hyperbole, you ought to have a better understanding what it is. My statement certainly was hyperbole – brought on in fact by your statement that when judged by the economy George Bush ranks among the best presidents ever. Let’s not forget the ridiculous comment you made that started all of this. As to the rest of your diatribe of what my statement implies, I’m not going to address it again. It was made for effect on a whim and I’ve already renounced it repeatedly. The fact that you continue to dissect something that I’m not even defending is laughable, and another sign of just how weak the rest of your position is. Rather than try to support it or counter anything I’ve said of substance, you instead try to deflect and argue against something that I’m not even trying to defend.

JMK - EVERY single one of those indicators is incredibly positive! We have near record low unemployment, low inflation (2.4%), low interest rates, rising wage rates and strong GDP growth...and no Tech Bubble mirage, like the one responsible for the gossamer “great economy” of the late 1990s. This one’s for real.
While I’d like to see the national debt closer to 50% of GDP there isn’t a (sane) soul alive who’d dare argue in favor of eliminating the national debt!

As I said before, if you go off to Vegas on a spending spree maxing out your credit cards, life will be good. It’s only the coming years where you have to pay down the debt incurred on your spending spree that will be unpleasant. The future will tell on just how successful this economy really is. You can’t borrow borrow borrow and never pay back. At some point you have to reverse the trend. No one ever said that we can or should eliminate the debt, just make it more manageable. That’s where the whole issue of deficits vs. surpluses come in. You cannot run deficits year over year indefinitely. You are clear on the difference between deficits and the debt now right?

“I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity.” (GZ)

JMK - That’s NOT a rebuke of my statement, “Knowing, as I’m sure you do, that so many millions of Catholics were also killed, that you continue to repeat...that “the holocaust was inspired by Christianity.”

No it’s not, it was a rebuke of another of your assumptions of my meaning. However there is a difference between claiming that the holocaust was inspired by Christianity , and that it was inspired in part by Christianity. It’s also incorrect for you to imply that Christians were targeted for extermination in the holocaust the same way that the jews were.

JMK - My statement correctly implies that you’ve offered no evidence of any link between Hitler’s Third Reich and Christianity.

I’ve offered links and plenty of dialogue as to why there’s a connection. If you’re looking for an overt command sent down from the Vatican then you’re not going to get one. The connection is among the people who participated in the holocaust or stood by and did nothing. The religious differences played a part in how that happened. That’s obvious.
As to evidence I don’t see your documented evidence for the direct link between Hitler and the cult of Thule. I see you’ve backed off of that. Whatever happened to “Hitler’s well known and documented membership in the occult lodge (the Thule Gestalt)”? Should I take all of your assertions as seriously as that one? Clearly you have your facts wrong, andinstead you just run with what you believe to be true.

JMK - Hitler was not a practicing Christian.

Neither are most “Christians” in this country, it doesn’t mean they’re a part of the cult of Thule. Of course most Germans were Christians and despite what you may want to believe the German people were collectively responsible for that event. Not just Hitler and Himmler. Etc.

JMK - Nazism was built on a Nordic mythology.

I’ve already posted a link and a blurb about the origins of the nazi party. Here it is againsince it didn’t sink in the first time:
In 1919, the Thule Society's Anton Drexler, who had developed links between the Society and various extreme right workers' organizations in Munich, together with Karl Harrer established the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), or German Workers Party. Adolf Hitler joined this party in 1919. By April 1, 1920, the DAP had been reconstituted as the National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), or National Socialist German Workers Party (generally known as the "Nazi Party").
Von Sebottendorff had by then left the Thule Society, and never joined the DAP or the Nazi party. It has been alleged that other members of the Thule Society were later prominent in Nazi Germany: the list includes Dietrich Eckart, Gottfried Feder, Hans Frank, Rudolf Hess and Alfred Rosenberg. (Eckart, who coached Hitler on his public speaking skills, had Mein Kampf dedicated to him.) Historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (1985: 149, 217-225) has described such membership rolls as 'spurious' and 'fanciful', noting that Feder, Rosenberg, Eckart and Hess were never more than guests to whom the Thule Society extended hospitality during the Bavarian revolution of 1918. It has also been claimed that Adolf Hitler himself was a member (Angebert 1974: 9). There is no evidence to support this claim; on the contrary, the evidence shows that he never attended a meeting, as attested to by Johannes Hering's diary of Society meetings (Johannes Hering, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Thule-Gesellschaft, typescript dated 21 June 1939, Bundesarchiv Koblenz, NS26/865, cit. in Goodrick-Clarke 1992: 201). It is quite clear that Hitler himself had little interest in, and made little time for, "esoteric" matters.”

So as much as you would like to believe that Nazism was based on Norse mythology it was not. It was based on socialism and the working man, which on the face of it was a very practical very German ideal. The concept of Aryanism was adopted by the party as a means of unifying the german people. Hitler and most of the power within the party used that and any other concepts they could to their own ends, they clearly didn’t buy into it. The average german was a Christian as well, they merged the Aryan concept with their own concept of Christianity. You don’t believe they saw themselves as going to war at the behest of Wotan do you?

JMK - The view that “Nazism was inspired by Christianity,” (in part or whole doesn’t matter), is as absurd as the view that “Communism was inspired by Judaism,” (again, in part or whole doesn’t matter) – both views are wrong.

More straw men. I never said Nazism was inspired by Christianity. Nor did I make any claims about Communism.

JMK - The fact that many Christian Germans were Nazis, while many Jewish Germans and Russians were Communists does not implicate either religion in those abhorrent ideologies.

Jewish Germans were interred in camps or killed so you’re right Judaism is not implicated in anyway. Christian Germans however were inspired to believe that they were Aryans and superior to the “inferior” races. You can say what you want but the religious differences between them and the jews as well as the fact that in the Bible the jews are partially responsible for the death of their saviour certainly played a role in the way the average german reacted to those horrific events. In that way those germans concept of Christianity did play a role in those events. Their religion isn’t something you can divorce from their actions. Call them radical Christians if you want or Christian extremists (the way you do with Moslems) whatever helps you divorce them from the main body of Christians.

Keep in mind that while Christianity played a role, it played a very small role. There were many many factors in what happened, societal, political, economical, racial etc. Every single one played it’s part you seem to imagine that I’m laying the holocaust at the feet of the Christian church, that isn’t the case at all.

BTW I'm anonymous :)

The national debt is the precise numerical value of the national debt.

The debt ratio (national debt as a percentage of GDP) is NOT "the correct way of viewing it," it is merely a ratio that makes the comparison of the debt burdens between nations easier to understand. The concepts of debt and the debt ratio are as different and distinct as are the debt and the deficit.

The national debt never decreased over the past few decades.

It has gone up every year because we've engaged in deficit spending each year.

The deficit decreased under Gingrich/Clinton, but not the debt.

Moreover our current debt ratio IS not disastrous, nor "out-of-whack" compared to other nations, considering that few industrialized nations have debt ratios below 50% of GDP.

Neither the debt nor the debt ratio are traditional economic indicators, while unemployment rate, inflation rate, interest rates, GDP growth and personal income all are.

With GDP growth strong, personal incomes rising, interest rates still low and both inflation and unemployment very low, the current economy is not only strong, but it's a "great economy," because the only economy that compared to it favorably (the late 1990s) was fueled by an artificial Tech Bubble that never would've existed absent some major rules changes at the SEC during that period.

Your premise that this is "a bad economy, because of the national debt level" is wrong and so is your mistaking the national debt for the debt ratio.

"JMK - The view that “Nazism was inspired by Christianity,” (in part or whole doesn’t matter), is as absurd as the view that “Communism was inspired by Judaism,” (again, in part or whole doesn’t matter) – both views are wrong." (JMK)


"More straw men. I never said Nazism was inspired by Christianity. Nor did I make any claims about Communism." (GZ)


Yeah you did, "I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity," (GZ)

Moroever the second phrase is indisputable proof that you're an idiot (nothing wrong with that)..."Nor did I make any claims about Communism," (GZ)...is an idiotic response to the statement, " The view that “Nazism was inspired by Christianity,” (in part or whole doesn’t matter), is as absurd as the view that “Communism was inspired by Judaism.”

In point of fact there is MORE evidence of a Judaic link to Communism (Marx was an atheistic Jew) and Jews in both Germany and Russia were prevalent within the Communist movement in both places.

The reason that Judaism is NOT implicated in Communism is because many Jews (shop owners and businessmen) were among the victims of Communism/Socialism.

"Christian Germans however were inspired to believe that they were Aryans and superior to the “inferior” races." (GZ)


Not true.

Unless Catholics aren't "Christians," in your view....since 3 million of them were killed by Hitler.

The Third Reich based its authority and legitimacy on a Nordic Mythology, nazism's economy was SOCIALIST.

JMK - The national debt is the precise numerical value of the national debt.

Correct

JMK - The debt ratio (national debt as a percentage of GDP) is NOT "the correct way of viewing it," it is merely a ratio that makes the comparison of the debt burdens between nations easier to understand.

Partially correct. The ratio is also used to compare any two or more periods with additional variables.

JMK - The concepts of debt and the debt ratio are as different and distinct as are the debt and the deficit.

Correct, however you still unclear as to when they are correctly applied.

JMK - The national debt never decreased over the past few decades.

A misleading statement. Using your logic we don’t take into account inflation, rising incomes, or any other factors. Using your argument it’s hard to rationalize how we can manage a debt load of 7.9 Trillion today when it was only 358 Billion in 1968. Or more to the point using your methodology we had a debt burden of 4.7 Trillion in 1994 While today it’s 7.9 Trillion, however if viewed correctly as a percentage of GDP you find that both periods come in at 66.9%. Using just one piece of data out of the context of all other relevant pieces of data provides you with absolutely no meaningful data whatsoever.

JMK - It has gone up every year because we've engaged in deficit spending each year.

Yes but under the Clinton Gingrich years deficits were reduced. The effect of that is not clearly seen unless you take rising GDP into account.

JMK - The deficit decreased under Gingrich/Clinton, but not the debt.

In a strictly raw number sense you’re correct, I never claimed otherwise. What I have asserted, and what is correct is that your methodology is flawed because it does not take everything into account. Only of course in the case of your analysis of the Italian success story.

JMK - Moreover our current debt ratio IS not disastrous, nor "out-of-whack" compared to other nations, considering that few industrialized nations have debt ratios below 50% of GDP.

No thankfully we are not at the happy ratio of 100% that Israel enjoys and you find so attractive. The point is that the farther out it progresses the more difficult and time consuming it will be to reign in.

JMK - Neither the debt nor the debt ratio are traditional economic indicators, while unemployment rate, inflation rate, interest rates, GDP growth and personal income all are.

That depends on what you’re trying to determine, and how far out you are trying to project.

JMK - Your premise that this is "a bad economy, because of the national debt level" is wrong and so is your mistaking the national debt for the debt ratio.

Another straw man, I never mistook either term for the other. Yu are the one who has no understanding of the difference between debt and deficit, as has been shown repeatedly. You are the one who has no capacity to understand why it’s important to use the ratio for any meaningful analysis that extends over several periods. My premise was and still is that you’re laughable when you propose that GWB is “up there among the best” presidents in terms of his handling of the economy.

"JMK - The view that “Nazism was inspired by Christianity,” (in part or whole doesn’t matter), is as absurd as the view that “Communism was inspired by Judaism,” (again, in part or whole doesn’t matter) – both views are wrong." (JMK)

"More straw men. I never said Nazism was inspired by Christianity. Nor did I make any claims about Communism." (GZ)

JMK - Yeah you did, "I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity," (GZ)

God you are an ass, and dishonest to boot. Why not post my quoted passage that precedes that one where I was clear on the distinction?

“However there is a difference between claiming that the holocaust was inspired by Christianity , and that it was inspired in part by Christianity.”

What’s the matter JMK? Can’t beat me without laying invalid claims at my feet? What’s that the 6th time you’ve done that in this thread so far?

JMK - Moroever the second phrase is indisputable proof that you're an idiot (nothing wrong with that)..."Nor did I make any claims about Communism," (GZ)...is an idiotic response to the statement, " The view that “Nazism was inspired by Christianity,” (in part or whole doesn’t matter), is as absurd as the view that “Communism was inspired by Judaism.”

Guess the gloves are off huh jackass? It’s pretty clear to anyone who makes a living outside of a firehouse who the idiot is here. You’ve consistently shown a lack of understanding of pretty basic economic terms as well as a bad habit of using 5 dollar vocabulary words that you don’t even really understand. You like to change tactics midstream and apply two standards to every argument just because it suits you. It baffles me sometimes why I even bother to attempt to educate your illiterate ass. Perhaps it’s in the hopes that if common sense won’t sink into your head then at least a semblance of proper grammar will. Then your next attempt at publication will be less onerous and at least semi-literate.

You know why you’re an idiot specifically this time? Because the relationship of Jews to Communism is entirely irrelevant, more so because I never did mention it you did. You want to make an analogy go ahead, but you have a tendency to write pages and pages of off topic dialogue. It’s one reason more people don’t waste the time engaging you, not because they find you enlightening, but because they find you tiresome. I realize that’s hard to accept when you so enjoy the sound of your own voice but try to deal with it.

JMK - The reason that Judaism is NOT implicated in Communism is because many Jews (shop owners and businessmen) were among the victims of Communism/Socialism.

That’s great, did I ever dispute that? Did I mention it? What’s the relevance genius?

JMK - "Christian Germans however were inspired to believe that they were Aryans and superior to the “inferior” races." (GZ)

Not true.
Unless Catholics aren't "Christians," in your view....since 3 million of them were killed by Hitler.
The Third Reich based its authority and legitimacy on a Nordic Mythology, nazism's economy was SOCIALIST.

Yes they were socialists. As to religion you are wrong. I’m still waiting for the proof of Hitler’s membership in the cult of Thule? Better get out of the firehouse and start doing some research. Here are some quotes for you to enjoy while you do.

“National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship... We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

There are also clearly established histories of how Christianity was used by the Nazis to control the people. The soldiers in the field were subjected to it. Many wore belt buckles inscribed with “Gott Mit Uns” translated as God with us. There are countless examples. The concept of a superior Aryan race told by the cult of Thule, akin to Atlantis was adopted by the Nazis only insofar as it furthered the notion of the superior German. It was moded along with Christianity into their warped world view. You can prattle on all you want but it won’t change anything.

You’re wrong JMK, as usual. Wrong about almost everything. That’s ok, I would expect nothing less from someone of your mental caliber. Are you off soft foods yet?

“Moreover our current debt ratio IS not disastrous, nor "out-of-whack" compared to other nations, considering that few industrialized nations have debt ratios below 50% of GDP.” (JMK)


“No thankfully we are not at the happy ratio of 100% that Israel enjoys and you find so attractive. The point is that the farther out it progresses the more difficult and time consuming it will be to reign in.” (GZ)


Thank you for conceding that our current level of debt is NOT disastrous, which is what your initial response implied!

Given that few industrialized nations have a debt ratio of less than 50%, our current debt ratio, although higher than optimal (as I said early on) is not ruinous, and thus not a reason to claim it undermines the reality that the current economy is one of the strongest in recent memory...especially when compared to the gossamer “boom” of the late 1990s caused by an artificially composed Tech Bubble.




“Your premise that this is "a bad economy, because of the national debt level" is wrong and so is your mistaking the national debt for the debt ratio. (JMK)


“Another straw man, I never mistook either term for the other. Yu are the one who has no understanding of the difference between debt and deficit, as has been shown repeatedly. You are the one who has no capacity to understand why it’s important to use the ratio for any meaningful analysis that extends over several periods. My premise was and still is that you’re laughable when you propose that GWB is “up there among the best” presidents in terms of his handling of the economy.”


Again, you mis-quote even your own disagreement with me.

You didn’t disagree with me claiming that G W Bush was “among the best U.S. Presidents ever,” as I never stated that, but among the “best” Presidents post-WW II.

“You're a might confused there BW, the current occupant isn't even close to “the worst President since WW II.”

“In fact, with the current economy (without any smoke and mirrors Tech Bubble), he's got to rank right up there among the best.” (JMK)


My response to BW’s “the worst President since WW II,” clearly refers to that time period (post-WW II)...I would have had to add “ever” in order to imply that I was expanding the time period that BW’s comment set.


Your response;

“The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 Jan 2007 at 04:38:06 PM GMT is: $ 8,597,657,117,201.24

“Yeah that economy is swimming along. You and I must define "Best" very differently...” (GZ)


...is wrong, because yes, with 2.4% inflation, 4.5% unemployment, low interest rates, strong GDP growth, rising personal incomes, the current economy IS “swimming along.”

And yes, among Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton. Bush Jr., I’d have him ranked third behind Reagan and Ike.

He gets credit for the economy AND for engaging us in a war we needed to have engaged in ten years ago.

“The view that “Nazism was inspired by Christianity,” (in part or whole doesn’t matter), is as absurd as the view that “Communism was inspired by Judaism,” (again, in part or whole doesn’t matter) – both views are wrong." (JMK)


"More straw men. I never said Nazism was inspired by Christianity. Nor did I make any claims about Communism." (GZ)


“Yeah you did, "I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity," (GZ)


“However there is a difference between claiming that the holocaust was inspired by Christianity , and that it was inspired in part by Christianity.” (GZ)


The “difference” between “inspired” and “partly inspired” is as real as the difference between pregnant and a little bit pregnant.

The difference doesn’t exist.

You linked Christianity to the Holocaust, and now after acknowledging that 3 Million Catholics were killed in the Holocaust, you seek to back away from that link as only a “partial inspiration.”


“What’s the matter JMK? Can’t beat me without laying invalid claims at my feet? What’s that the 6th time you’ve done that in this thread so far?” (GZ)


You can’t “win” a discussion and you can’t “beat” someone in a mere verbal exchange.

This view of yours, that you’re engaged in some form of debate, and not a mere discussion or exchange, is embarrassingly misguided.

It puts you on a par with the likes of pedantic dolts like Russ and Jill, who mistakenly think they’re fighting some kind of ideological war with words.

In truth, ideological wars aren’t fought or won with words.


"Christian Germans however were inspired to believe that they were Aryans and superior to the “inferior” races." (GZ)


“Not true.

“Unless Catholics aren't "Christians," in your view....since 3 million of them were killed by Hitler.

“The Third Reich based its authority and legitimacy on a Nordic Mythology, nazism's economy was SOCIALIST.”


“Yes they were socialists.

“As to religion you are wrong.”


“Again 3 MILLION Catholics murdered in the Holocaust and this, one of Goebbels’ more recognizable quotes;

"The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."

Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id2.html

If you can’t address the reality of those 3 Million Catholics murdered, then you’re unable to defend your initial link, I mean uh-huh, “partial inspiration.”

I guess I should feel special since I now consistently get two to three posts from you in response to every one post of my own.

Today’s vocabulary word is CONCISE. Learn it, live it, love it.

JMK - Thank you for conceding that our current level of debt is NOT disastrous, which is what your initial response implied!

No my initial post implied that you’re claim that GWB ranks up there among the best presidents in terms of his economic policies was ridiculous. I’ve never contended that we are presently in the throes of a devastating economy. What I said was that the policies of this president will have lasting economic ramifications beyond his term. The growing debt, consistent deficits, increased federal spending, etc. All of these contribute to a burden that is being pushed off until the future. That is not sound economic policy, not for the long term.

JMK - and thus not a reason to claim it undermines the reality that the current economy is one of the strongest in recent memory.

That’s probably why I never made that claim. Another straw man.

JMK – Again, you mis-quote even your own disagreement with me.
You didn’t disagree with me claiming that G W Bush was “among the best U.S. Presidents ever,” as I never stated that, but among the “best” Presidents post-WW II.
“You're a might confused there BW, the current occupant isn't even close to “the worst President since WW II.”
“In fact, with the current economy (without any smoke and mirrors Tech Bubble), he's got to rank right up there among the best.” (JMK)

You’re going to split hairs over “among the best presidents ever” in terms of the economy and “among the best presidents since WWII” in terms of the economy? There aren’t many presidents pre – WWII where you could even make any type of meaningful comparison. In fact the only times I’ve cited anything pre WWII was in the case of statistics relating to the national debt. The only reason I went so far back was to illustrate how inaccurate it is to compare debt across different periods without taking into account it’s relation to GDP.

JMK - My response to BW’s “the worst President since WW II,” clearly refers to that time period (post-WW II)...I would have had to add “ever” in order to imply that I was expanding the time period that BW’s comment set.

OK – JMK, so now I understand that while you believe GWB to be among the best since WWII, you aren’t saying he’s necessarily more savvy about the markets then Andrew Jackson. Really what’s the relevance? The modern economy as it is didn’t really become what it was until post WWII where we emerged as a superpower.

JMK - Your response;
“The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 Jan 2007 at 04:38:06 PM GMT is: $ 8,597,657,117,201.24
“Yeah that economy is swimming along. You and I must define "Best" very differently...” (GZ)

...is wrong, because yes, with 2.4% inflation, 4.5% unemployment, low interest rates, strong GDP growth, rising personal incomes, the current economy IS “swimming along.”

How is it “wrong”? We obviously define best differently. And swimming along is great - unless you run the risk of swimming further out then you can safely return. But why worry about tomorrow right?

Newsflash JMK – something isn’t wrong just because you repeat yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

JMK - And yes, among Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton. Bush Jr., I’d have him ranked third behind Reagan and Ike.

That’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. That doesn’t make it reality though. I’m somewhat amazed that you’re putting him ahead of his father.

JMK - He gets credit for the economy AND for engaging us in a war we needed to have engaged in ten years ago.

Ah so that’s why you rank him above his father, because you’re still mad he didn’t (finish the job). I’ll agree with you that he gets credit for the damage he’s done to the economy as well as the choice to engage us in this ridiculous war. I’m sorry to predict that you’re going to be one unhappy fellow in a few years because it’s pretty clear that once this president leaves office the war will be ending. And that as you like to say is a good thing.

JMK - “The view that “Nazism was inspired by Christianity,” (in part or whole doesn’t matter), is as absurd as the view that “Communism was inspired by Judaism,” (again, in part or whole doesn’t matter) – both views are wrong." (JMK)

"More straw men. I never said Nazism was inspired by Christianity. Nor did I make any claims about Communism." (GZ)

“Yeah you did, "I said the holocaust was evil and it was in part inspired by christanity," (GZ)

Nope I said in part and I explained the difference between the two concepts at length and YOU know I did. You’re not only obstinate you’re intellectually dishonest for pushing the point again and again without referencing the distinction. But then again I expect nothing less.

JMK - “However there is a difference between claiming that the holocaust was inspired by Christianity , and that it was inspired in part by Christianity.” (GZ)

The “difference” between “inspired” and “partly inspired” is as real as the difference between pregnant and a little bit pregnant.

Bad analogy. It’s not the same, you don’t get pregnant from multiple sources. It’s one spermatozoa and one egg. You do get inspiration from various sources. You are influenced by multiple things in varying degrees. So while you can’t be a little bit pregnant you certainly can be partially inspired. Events such as the holocaust are handled the same way. They are almost always inspired by a multitude of different things. Sometimes there are trigger events that set things in motion, however the trigger alone is not enough.

That’s a pretty weak argument even for you.

JMK - The difference doesn’t exist.

Clearly it does, see it now? I hope so.

JMK - You linked Christianity to the Holocaust, and now after acknowledging that 3 Million Catholics were killed in the Holocaust, you seek to back away from that link as only a “partial inspiration.”

JMK - You linked Christianity to the Holocaust, and now after acknowledging that 3 Million Catholics were killed in the Holocaust, you seek to back away from that link as only a “partial inspiration.”

I haven’t backed away from anything. I’ve always claimed it was a partial inspiration. You keep trying to make it sound as if I said otherwise so I keep pointing you back to what I actually said. As I mentioned before a number of things inspired the holocaust.

JMK - You can’t “win” a discussion and you can’t “beat” someone in a mere verbal exchange.

Is this where you go all street on me and start discussing your friend “Mick” or whatever his name is? You certainly can win a debate – that’s why they have debate teams in college. You certainly can beat someone in a verbal exchange. Especially if they, like you, consistently overextend themselves and discuss things they don’t clearly understand. (Like the difference between the deficit and the debt, or Hitler’s “well-documented” membership in the cult of Thule.) See when you make outlandish statements, you often get called on them, and when you’re called out and clearly shown to be wrong it’s getting “beat” for whatever that’s worth. I know you think that just ignoring the inaccuracy, never addressing or acknowledging it and instead burying it under a mountain of other verbiage somehow makes it go away but it doesn’t. It’s a verbal smack-down.

JMK - This view of yours, that you’re engaged in some form of debate, and not a mere discussion or exchange, is embarrassingly misguided.

Embarrassing perhaps for you since you are consistently shown to be a pompous fool, better suited to put out fires then engage in debates over economic theory and history. What do you think a debate is? It doesn’t have to be a formal thing. To debate is to engage in argument by discussing opposing points. I’m not sure what YOU think you’re doing here, maybe lecturing…you certainly write enough for that. The fact is that we discuss issues, the act of exchange IS the act of debating. The fact that you don’t grasp that is laughable. What do you think it is that we do here? The fact that you don’t even understand that illustrates an inability to grasp fundamental concepts.

JMK - It puts you on a par with the likes of pedantic dolts like Russ and Jill, who mistakenly think they’re fighting some kind of ideological war with words.

No it doesn’t, perhaps in your mind it does, but we’ve already seen that your mind lacks a certain…capacity?

Just because I debate you here does not mean I think it somehow changes the world. At best someone might read this exchange and come away with more knowledge. That’s the most change it will effect. Collectively over time if everyone stands up and counters BS where they see it the net effect will be positive. That’s the best I ever hope for out of all of this, and even so that’s not the reason I bother. I just enjoy the exchange. If anyone is on a par with them it’s you – you’re the one who spends so much time on this day after day, board after board, thread after thread. Hell, you even have you own blog to bluster about in now since apparently writing 100,000 words a day on other people’s blogs wasn’t enough for you. My wife has told me I should start a blog, so have friends because in their words “I write so well”. My answer is why? There is already so much dead bandwidth out there why should I contribute even more than I do? What’s the point. Even this exchange is buried in the archives of Barry’s blog. I seriously doubt anyone is reading this besides me and you at this point. The only reason it continues is the one trait we both clearly share – stubbornness.

JMK - "Christian Germans however were inspired to believe that they were Aryans and superior to the “inferior” races." (GZ)

“Not true.
“Unless Catholics aren't "Christians," in your view....since 3 million of them were killed by Hitler.
“The Third Reich based its authority and legitimacy on a Nordic Mythology, nazism's economy was SOCIALIST.”

Yes it is true – and neither Catholics nor Christians are races. The 3 million Christians killed were primarily Poles, a race deemed inferior by the Nazis so they tried to eradicate them all, 3 million of which were Christians, another 3 million were jews. What do you think the whole connection to the cult of Thule was? Have you ever bothered to read about it, or did you just use it as a sound bite? The cult of Thule was based on an ancient legend of a Northern superrace, akin to Atlanteans. That was the connection, support for the premise that Aryans were descended from this race and therefore racially superior to the other races.

The Third Reich based it’s authority on it’s roots as the worker’s party. It extended control using various means including the use of the Christian religion. To claim that their control and legitimacy was based upon a Nordic Mythology shows a severe lack of knowledge on your part, which is fine, but what’s not fine is to keep insisting that this pet theory of yours is the truth.

I’ve already outlined above in detail the connection between the nazi party and the cult of Thule. It’s tenuous. But you’ve already been shown to be wrong on this issue when you made it a point to remind me of “Hitler’s well known and documented membership in the occult lodge (the Thule Gestalt)” a claim that is completely false. I’ve asked you to substantiate that claim several times now but you choose not to, I guess in the hopes that it will just go away.

The fact that you phrased it in that way is very telling as to your nature. You wrote that so emphatically and matter of factly, even though it’s a fantasy. It calls into question a lot of your writings. I really think you just get a notion somewhere and just run with it. Not much in the way of checking your sources, or seeking validation or alternate accounts, or even established fact.

JMK - “Again 3 MILLION Catholics murdered in the Holocaust and this, one of Goebbels’ more recognizable quotes;
"The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

I already gave you a ton of quotes from Hitler. Whether they’re recognizable or not seems irrelevant doesn’t it? I’d also remind you that I’ve said from the beginning that it wasn’t one man that caused the holocaust. When I say that Christianity had a partial influence it’s the influence it had among the masses.

JMK - If you can’t address the reality of those 3 Million Catholics murdered, then you’re unable to defend your initial link, I mean uh-huh, “partial inspiration.”

I already did above. They were killed because they were Poles. I also explained why partially inspired is not the same as “a little bit pregnant.” I hope you’re able to grasp the difference. A few months ago I’d have assumed you could, now however I have my doubts.

You see I actually address the things you ask me. You on the other hand obfuscate, ignore, deflect etc. You don’t answer direct questions such as please substantiate “Hitler’s well known and documented membership in the occult lodge (the Thule Gestalt)”.

I know why you won’t because you can’t. And you can’t admit you were wrong either so instead you try to hide and duck the question. I think I’m going to start every post with that question from now on until you either provide proof (which you can’t) or admit you were wrong (which you won’t). Thanks for providing me with such cheap entertainment, it helps the day move faster.

I guess I should feel special since I now consistently get two to three posts from you in response to every one post of my own.

Today’s vocabulary word is CONCISE. Learn it, live it, love it. (GZ)


Ironically and yes, typically enough I’ve replied to your wrong-headed posts in an extremely concise (verbally economical) style. On 1/29 you responded to my 911 word post with a 2,446 blustery, blow-hard response, seeking to duck away from your inane economic argument and your linking Nazism to Christianity. On 1/26 you responded to my two posts totaling 487 word post with a tedious tome of 1,976 words! And on 1/25 you responded to my 501 word post with yet another tedious 1,880 word post. Hmmmm, cone-syse – I don’t a think that word mean, what you seem to think it mean.

Still that’s odd, because you apparently really thought you were being more concise (efficient with words)...

Another clear example that you often don’t know what you’re talking about? That really should be something to think about.


No my initial post implied that you’re claim that GWB ranks up there among the best presidents in terms of his economic policies was ridiculous. I’ve never contended that we are presently in the throes of a devastating economy. What I said was that the policies of this president will have lasting economic ramifications beyond his term. The growing debt, consistent deficits, increased federal spending, etc. All of these contribute to a burden that is being pushed off until the future...


Indeed, the current economy is probably the best since, well since Ike was in office – near record unemployment rates (as low as 4.4%), very low inflation (now 2.2% since energy prices came down), consistently low interest rates (some of the lowest rates ever over the past four years), strong GDP growth, over 7.5 million new jobs created and rising personal income, rising productivity, not to mention a shrinking deficit – FROM 3.8% of GDP in 2003 TO just 1.5% of GDP (through fourth quarter estimates).

When the current national debt, as well as our deficit spending is viewed in light of a necessary, though hugely expensive military war against Islamic extremism and the rogue states that have supported and sponsored it, as well as a huge security build-up at home, along with the fiscal drag created by the corporate scandals that broke in 2001, the attacks of 9/11/01 and Katrina, it’s astounding that the national debt ratio (appx 65% of GDP) is as low as it actually is.

Smaller deficits slow the debt growth, though only spending cuts, especially reining “entitlement spending” (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) will allow us to reduce the debt.

According to Brian M. Riedl of the Heritage Foundationn, “When measured properly, the federal govern¬ment’s debt burden is actually below the post–World War II average. It is lower than it was at any time during the 1990s.




...and thus not a reason to claim it undermines the reality that the current economy is one of the strongest in recent memory. (JMK)


That’s probably why I never made that claim. Another straw man. (GZ)


You sure did, try and follow what you wrote;

“You're a might confused there BW, the current occupant isn't even close to the worst President since WW II.

“In fact, with the current economy (without any smoke and mirrors Tech Bubble), he's got to rank right up there among the best.” (JMK)


“The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 Jan 2007 at 04:38:06 PM GMT is:
$ 8,597,657,117,201.24 The Gross National Debt

“Yeah that economy is swimming along. You and I must define "Best" very differently.” (GZ)


Your response is very clear, you gave the national debt as the reason you believed the current economy is far from being “right up there among the best since WW II,” as that’s what my response to BW claimed.

You’re not about to tell me what I meant, are you?

No you’re not.

Perhaps you misread, maybe you skimmed, but my response to BW made it clear, (“the current occupant isn't even close to the worst President since WW II.”) acknowledged the parameters BW had set “since WW II.” Your response, (“Yeah that economy is swimming along. You and I must define "Best" very differently.”) makes clear you don’t think the current economy is among the best since WW II, when in fact, it most certainly is. (JMK)




“You’re going to split hairs over “among the best presidents ever” in terms of the economy and “among the best presidents since WWII” in terms of the economy? There aren’t many presidents pre – WWII where you could even make any type of meaningful comparison. In fact the only times I’ve cited anything pre WWII was in the case of statistics relating to the national debt. The only reason I went so far back was to illustrate how inaccurate it is to compare debt across different periods without taking into account it’s relation to GDP.” (GZ)


So you DID misread!

Yeah, I’m going to hold you to the stated parameters of the response you objected to!

Those parameters clearly included only the last ten Presidents Ike thru Bush Jr., leaving out the Roaring Twenties and the Gilded Age, etc.

Since WW II, the current economy is close to, and possibly better than the one that Ike presided over in the wake of WW II.

The U.S. was an economic juggernaut the more open and free its economy. We’ve never approached the economic growth of the 1880s through the turn of the Century, nor the explosive prosperity of the post-WW I boom of the 1920s. (GZ)




“Your response;
“The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 Jan 2007 at 04:38:06 PM GMT is: $ 8,597,657,117,201.24
“Yeah that economy is swimming along. You and I must define "Best" very differently,”...is wrong, because yes, with 2.4% inflation, 4.5% unemployment, low interest rates, strong GDP growth, rising personal incomes, the current economy IS “swimming along.” (JMK)


“How is it “wrong”? We obviously define best differently. And swimming along is great - unless you run the risk of swimming further out then you can safely return. But why worry about tomorrow right? (GZ)


ALL the economic parameters are positive right now!

We’re on month 51 of a HUGE economic expansion with very LOW inflation, near record LOW unemployment, strong GDP growth, LOW interest rates, rising personal income amidst rising productivity, with deficit reduced from 3.8% of GDP to just 1.5% of GDP. With the economy expanding FIVE times faster than the debt there’s nothing to worry about.

The debt ratio (debt to GDP was higher during most of the 1990s than it is today and yet the media extolled Clinton’s “economic revival.”

ACTUAL NEWSFLASH: That’s because the MSM, by and large, don’t understand economics...they don’t “do math.”




“Newsflash JMK – something isn’t wrong just because you repeat yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.” (GZ)


Of course NOT, it’s right because the facts bear it out.

A 51 month economic expansion.

The economy growing FIVE times faster than the debt.

ALL economic indicators extremely positive – LOW inflation, unemployment, interest rates, rising personal income and productivity, a rollicking Dow and a shrinking deficit - halved over the last three years!

Your premise is wrong because you attempted to use the national debt as an “economic indicator,” and because you failed to take into account the shrinking deficit and the expanding economy.

The expanding economy allows us to take on more numerical, or actual debt without significantly raising the debt ration.




“Ah so that’s why you rank him above his father, because you’re still mad he didn’t (finish the job). I’ll agree with you that he gets credit for the damage he’s done to the economy as well as the choice to engage us in this ridiculous war. I’m sorry to predict that you’re going to be one unhappy fellow in a few years because it’s pretty clear that once this president leaves office the war will be ending. And that as you like to say is a good thing.” (GZ)


I rank him with Ike because only Eisenhower had such a great economic run!

Yes, I’m discounting the late 1990s Clinton/Gingrich economy due to the SEC rules changes that created an artificial Tech Bubble that never actually should’ve existed and wouldn’t have, absent those scam-like rules changes at the SEC.

Even Reagan did not preside over an economic expansion on the order of this one.

LBJ, Nixon and Carter – they’re ONLY contribution to the American economic system was to drive a stake through the heart of Keynesianism.

As to the war. We’re not getting out of Afghanistan OR Iraq any time soon.

In fact, you’ll see us engage Iran directly over Iraq, before we retreat or “re-deploy” there.

Bank on it!

In a few years, should America seek to pull out, and then look to eliminate the Patriot Act and NSA wiretap protections, I will be a VERY HAPPY fellow, and a far more well-off one, so long as I survive, as demand with people with my training will go through the roof.

Over the last thirty months our tax dollars have sent me all over the country (Bomb School, NM, Rad School, NV, Live (Chemical) Agent, AL, to MD for Chemistry for HazMat Specialists and a number of counter-terrorism seminars)...much appreciated.

Did you know that most Americans mistakenly think that the WoT is about al Qaeda?

It isn’t even fair to say it’s “primarily about al Qaeda,” or even “mostly about al Qaeda.”

Right now, Hezbollah is better financed, better organized and more in tact than al Qaeda and Hezbollah has a longer history of actions against the U.S. going back to the 1983 Marine Corps Barracks bombing in Lebanon.

The move away from our military response and to eliminate the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps is nothing less than an “unconditional surrender in the WoT,” for those three components comprise our entire WoT!

And no, we’re not going to be backing away from that. You COULD even argue that our current actions won’t allow us to later.

JMK - Today’s vocabulary word is CONCISE. Learn it, live it, love it. (GZ)

Ironically and yes, typically enough I’ve replied to your wrong-headed posts in an extremely concise (verbally economical) style. On 1/29 you responded to my 911 word post with a 2,446 blustery, blow-hard response, seeking to duck away from your inane economic argument and your linking Nazism to Christianity. On 1/26 you responded to my two posts totaling 487 word post with a tedious tome of 1,976 words! And on 1/25 you responded to my 501 word post with yet another tedious 1,880 word post. Hmmmm, cone-syse – I don’t a think that word mean, what you seem to think it mean.

If you think I’m going to go back and waste my time doing word counts of previous posts you’re truly insane. And since noone is reading this but you and me let’s be frank. We both know who the blowhard is, and we both know who it is that posts page after page of odious repetitive script in an effort to steamroll over anyone that bothers to engage him. If you want to imagine that it’s me, then imagine all you want. But when you wake up it will always be you.

JMK - Still that’s odd, because you apparently really thought you were being more concise (efficient with words)...

I have been. I think you’ll find if you go back and redo your word counts you’ll find that many of my “words” are where I’m requiting you or quoting passages of text for your benefit.

JMK - According to Brian M. Riedl of the Heritage Foundationn, “When measured properly, the federal govern¬ment’s debt burden is actually below the post–World War II average. It is lower than it was at any time during the 1990s.

The Heritage Foundation isn’t always an objective source of data. To be honest it’s hard to find an objective source these days.

JMK - Your response is very clear, you gave the national debt as the reason you believed the current economy is far from being “right up there among the best since WW II,” as that’s what my response to BW claimed.

That’s correct, and I stand by it. I still believe that the amount of debt we’ve incurred will effect our economy in the years to come. I’ve always said that I don’t just judge it by today, I’m looking ahead.

JMK - You’re not about to tell me what I meant, are you?
No you’re not.

Of course I’m not. I don’t do that, you do. The most I ever do is posit your meaning if it’s unclear, or if it seems astounding to me and I want you to clarify.

JMK – Perhaps you misread, maybe you skimmed, but my response to BW made it clear, (“the current occupant isn't even close to the worst President since WW II.”) acknowledged the parameters BW had set “since WW II.” Your response, (“Yeah that economy is swimming along. You and I must define "Best" very differently.”) makes clear you don’t think the current economy is among the best since WW II, when in fact, it most certainly is. (JMK)

I will admit that initially I misread you because I did believe you meant of all presidents and not since WWII. However I don’t see that the distinction makes much of a difference in this discussion considering the differences in our economy as we move back into the past.

JMK - So you DID misread!
Yeah, I’m going to hold you to the stated parameters of the response you objected to!

In other words you’re going to split hairs over irrelevant minutia. I’m not surprised.

JMK - The U.S. was an economic juggernaut the more open and free its economy. We’ve never approached the economic growth of the 1880s through the turn of the Century, nor the explosive prosperity of the post-WW I boom of the 1920s.

And you attribute this economic boom to the men sitting in the oval office? Those booms were fueled by our western expansion and acquisition of more and more resources. You know that. That’s why I don’t think it would matter much to compare Bush to pre WWII presidents as well. Regardless my focus wasn’t on pre WWII even if I initially misread you. Even so ranking him 3rd out of ten isn’t exactly “among the best.” Best out of ten seems the wrong way to characterize it.

JMK - ALL the economic parameters are positive right now!

They aren’t all positive in the long term until those deficits have been consistently reduced for an extended period. I’ve always said that my concern is how we decide to pay down the debt in the future. I’m aware that you don’t see this as a problem, I do.

JMK - ACTUAL NEWSFLASH: That’s because the MSM, by and large, don’t understand economics...they don’t “do math.”

That’s why I don’t go to the MSM when I wish to discuss the economy. The problem with discussing economics is that very few people think mathematically, so it’s quite easy for those who do to tweak things in their modeling to show things the way they want them to be seen. I’ve tried to show you some examples, you just don’t se it.

JMK - Your premise is wrong because you attempted to use the national debt as an “economic indicator,” and because you failed to take into account the shrinking deficit and the expanding economy.

No actually you’re wrong. I’ve consistently taken those factors into account, that’s why when I discuss the debt I generally discuss it as a percentage of GDP. Something you initially said is only to be used when comparing different nations. However in this latest thread you use it to discuss the reduction in the deficit. That’s inconsistent. You can’t use it only when you wish to. That’s basic mathematics JMK, you can’t just discard terms when they’re inconvenient. They either always apply or they don’t.

JMK - Yes, I’m discounting the late 1990s Clinton/Gingrich economy due to the SEC rules changes that created an artificial Tech Bubble that never actually should’ve existed and wouldn’t have, absent those scam-like rules changes at the SEC.

That’s awfully convenient. I guess the economic indicators were wrong in the 90’s? You may not like Clinton but you cannot write off the economy of the 1990’s.

JMK - As to the war. We’re not getting out of Afghanistan OR Iraq any time soon.
In fact, you’ll see us engage Iran directly over Iraq, before we retreat or “re-deploy” there.
Bank on it!

Even if you’re right do you really think that’s a good thing? Where do you imagine we’re going to get the troops? The Canary Islands again?

JMK - Did you know that most Americans mistakenly think that the WoT is about al Qaeda?
I’ll do you one better a number of them mistakenly think it’s about Iraq. The fact is that we cannot send the military into every nation that has terrorist cells. Not on a massive scale. It has to be more surgical and it has to be done in conjunction with the nation in question. We aren’ about to invade western Europe to weed out cells are we? Don’t believe that I think it’s going to be easy, but that’s the only way it can be done.

JMK - I will be a VERY HAPPY fellow, and a far more well-off one, so long as I survive, as demand with people with my training will go through the roof.

Now you’re being facetious. As to your training, that’s wonderful. You are after all a fireman, I’d expect you to receive training. I think that all the seminars have narrowed your vision however.

JMK - The move away from our military response and to eliminate the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps is nothing less than an “unconditional surrender in the WoT,” for those three components comprise our entire WoT!
And no, we’re not going to be backing away from that. You COULD even argue that our current actions won’t allow us to later.

I thought you said you’d be a “VERY HAPPY FELLOW” if we eliminated the above? So you must have been being facetious.

This thread has become nasty and unproductive, and we both played a part in that. There’s really no point to continue, I don’t dislike you, I just am amazed sometimes at the things you say. You’re never going to budge an inch and neither am I, and I’m tired of the semantic games of “oneupsmanship” we’ve been playing. Noone else is likely even reading it so it’s now just about having the last word. GO ahead and have it. It’s my gift to you. Knock yourself out.

“ALL the economic parameters are positive right now!” (JMK)


“They aren’t all positive in the long term until those deficits have been consistently reduced for an extended period. I’ve always said that my concern is how we decide to pay down the debt in the future. I’m aware that you don’t see this as a problem, I do.”


The DEFICIT has been reduced by nearly half over the past two years!

I think you’ll agree that there are only three possible ways to eliminate the deficit (deficit spending gap) - increasing revenues, reducing spending (including so-called “entitlement spending”) and growing the economy.

Supply-Side economics has proven that tax increases (OK, hiking income tax rates) actually reduce revenues and no one’s been able to refute that.

Tax cuts (lowering income tax rates) down to about the 20% level increase revenues. Tax rate hikes lead to revenue reductions because people respond to incentives. When tax rates are increased it pays for higher income earners to defer more of their income “tax deferred.”

The easier goal would be spending reductions, so long as you have people in government with the integrity to make tough choices, which to date, we don’t.

Of course the easiest thing of all would be to grow the economy.

That’s how the deficits were lowered in the late 1990s and that’s what’s happening now. Our economy is currently growing FIVE TIMES faster than our debt burden.

With the deficit being reduced even faster than it was during the late 1990s and with the economy growing faster, relative to debt burden than it was at that time, to claim our national debt now is a problem that it wasn’t in the late 1990s seems absurd.




“Your premise is wrong because you attempted to use the national debt as an “economic indicator,” and because you failed to take into account the shrinking deficit and the expanding economy.” (JMK)


“No actually you’re wrong. I’ve consistently taken those factors into account, that’s why when I discuss the debt I generally discuss it as a percentage of GDP. Something you initially said is only to be used when comparing different nations. However in this latest thread you use it to discuss the reduction in the deficit. That’s inconsistent. You can’t use it only when you wish to. That’s basic mathematics JMK, you can’t just discard terms when they’re inconvenient. They either always apply or they don’t.” (GZ)


If you took into account the fact that our economy is expanding FIVE times as fast as our debt burden and that the revenue surge, resulting from those earlier tax cuts has reduced the deficit by about half over the past two years, then you wouldn’t have expressed the view that the debt burden looms large over our current economy.




“Yes, I’m discounting the late 1990s Clinton/Gingrich economy due to the SEC rules changes that created an artificial Tech Bubble that never actually should’ve existed and wouldn’t have, absent those scam-like rules changes at the SEC.” (JMK)


“That’s awfully convenient. I guess the economic indicators were wrong in the 90’s? You may not like Clinton but you cannot write off the economy of the 1990’s.” (GZ)


No, not at all!

It was a great, albeit scam economy!

I was very fortunate only because I listened to my cousin, a broker.

In February of 2000 I was going to move the bulk of my mutual fund cache into tech stocks. When I talked to my cousin he simply said, “Look around.”

I answered, “OK, what?”

“See every TV tuned to MSNBC, in diners, garages, everywhere?”

I said, “Yeah, even my firehouse has it on all the time.”

“Well,” he said, “when every nitwit gets in, it’s time to get out.”

I asked “Out of stocks?”

“Out of everything! I’d look to cash out right now.”

I did and it was one of the best thing I ever did.

I only wish I could’ve told some of the guys at work or elsewhere, but I’ve always kept things like that confidential, because he asked.

The late 1990s Tech Bubble was a scam. I can’t prove it, of course, but I am convinced that it was. The rules changes at the SEC created that artificial bubble and while guys like Terry McAullife got rich ($17 million off Global Crossing stock, getting out just three weeks before it crashed), most “little guys” (small investors and most of those new investors) got shorn like sheep.

The late 1990s Tech Bubble was a scam.

Moreover, the current economy with its 51 month expansion is an even longer, sustained boom than the one we had between 1997 -2000.

No, only Ike’s economy comes close to the current expansion and that was only because we were the only economy in the world untouched directly by WW II’s devastation.

At this point though, I’d consider the current run about on par with Ike’s and better than any other economy post-WW II.

If you disagree, which economies would you claim were better, and why.




“As to the war. We’re not getting out of Afghanistan OR Iraq any time soon.
In fact, you’ll see us engage Iran directly over Iraq, before we retreat or “re-deploy” there.
Bank on it!” (JMK)


“Even if you’re right do you really think that’s a good thing? Where do you imagine we’re going to get the troops? The Canary Islands again?” (GZ)


What are you basing the view that we’re running out of troops on?

The number of soldiers KIA in Iraq is on the order of 12% the rate of American troops KIA in Vietnam. We’re loosing far fewer troops than we did in any previous conflict.

Iraq was invaded because a megalomaniacal dictator refused to comply with 1441 in order to maintain a façade of having WMDs to create a “deterrence by doubt.”

Both the English and American governments decided that they couldn’t accept that degree of doubt especially given Hussein’s antipathy for the U.S. and his aligning himself with al Qaeda’s Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq against the Iraqi Kurds there.

Since the invasion, Iraq has become a magnet for jihadists, many of them supported by other rogue states like Syria and Iran.

There certainly has been no shortage of mistakes made in post-Saddam Iraq. For one, we foolishly underestimated the level of animus between the Shiite and Sunni factions and overestimated their appreciation for and willingness to fight for their own freedom. Those things have resulted in a disaster, but it’s a disaster we just can’t walk away from.

I firmly believe that we are in the midst of a fight for our lives against globalized Sharia-based Islam. Already Europe is in imminent danger of being overrun. The longer Europe delays expelling the Muslim horde within its borders, (1) the less likely its chance of future success seems and (2) the more dire the future response will have to be.

I also believe that our military war on radicalized Islam has been a part of the reason why we haven’t been attacked on our own soil since 9/11 – well that and things like the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretap program.




“Did you know that most Americans mistakenly think that the WoT is about al Qaeda?” (JMK)


“I’ll do you one better a number of them mistakenly think it’s about Iraq. The fact is that we cannot send the military into every nation that has terrorist cells. Not on a massive scale. It has to be more surgical and it has to be done in conjunction with the nation in question. We aren’t about to invade western Europe to weed out cells are we? Don’t believe that I think it’s going to be easy, but that’s the only way it can be done.” (GZ)


That’s also correct.

It’s certainly not all about Iraq, nor even “mainly” about Iraq.

Saddam’s Iraq was no more or less involved in supporting global terror than was/is Iran and Syria. My point to you earlier on was that although we know that all of those nations were “sponsors of international terrorism,” there was not enough evidence against any of them to convict any of those nations under the burden of proof present in any court of law. Countries can hide illicit transactions in a variety of ways.

While I agree that we cannot send troops into every nation that harbors and sponsors international terrorism, I believe we had to take a stand against some of the most egregious ones that did. This government chose Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan as “The Axis of Evil.”

Probably because Pakistan and Saudi Arabia gave tacit support to our WoT, almost certainly to maintain those in power there, both Musharef and the Saudi Royals fear a takeover by a more extremist element...and they know that we (America & England) do too.

You’re also right about future fights and not just in Western Europe. We took a far more limited action in Somalia recently.

The only other “war,” we could be forced into might be with Iran and I believe this administration has been trying to avoid that for the last six years. Unfortunately, the insane Ahmadinejad has taken our willingness to negotiate as proof of our weakness.

But even in Iran, I doubt we’d see anything like an invasion. It would most likely take place against Iranian troops in Iraq, while we used CIA and Special Forces Units to assist revolutionary elements within that country to forge some kind of coup.

What I’m saying is that we now, for better or worse, have a vested interest in the success of the new Iraqi government, if only to secure a beachhead in the oil rich Mideast and a wedge between Syria and Iran.

Iraq was a risky proposition, but you’re a thoughtful enough person to realize that much of the opposition wasn’t based on people “knowing there were no WMDs.”

How could private citizens know what international intelligence agencies didn’t?

No, many believed there weren’t any WMDs there and now, even though it’s been shown that Saddam Hussein engaged in a deliberate attempt at “deterrence by doubt,” they insist that “the invasion of Iraq was based on deliberate lies.”

Anyone who looked at the level of antipathy by the American Left directed at the current occupant of the WH pre-9/11, knows that they were determined to assail this WH no matter what course of action it took.

That doesn’t make the current President a particularly good one – he’s failed to deal with our porous southern border and the disaster that is illegal immigration (an economic disaster well before 9/11, and a security breach after) and he failed to rein in excessive spending during his first six years.

On the domestic front, I believe that the actions taken (the Patriot Act & the NSA wiretaps) were quite modest, given the threat. A second attack, early on would’ve been politically devastating not only to the current administration, but perhaps to the GOP, so there was almost certainly pressure from some quarters to go even further.

As it stands we haven’t locked down America. We haven’t even expelled the Muslims who live and visit here, something that almost certainly would’ve been called for in the wake of a second major attack.




“I will be a VERY HAPPY fellow, and a far more well-off one, so long as I survive, as demand with people with my training will go through the roof.” (JMK)


“Now you’re being facetious. As to your training, that’s wonderful. You are after all a fireman, I’d expect you to receive training. I think that all the seminars have narrowed your vision however.” (GZ)


Of course!

I’d rather not see another attack. Not only would it be disastrous, it would probably challenge a lot of America’s most basic assumptions. Another major attack here would make it extremely difficult for American law enforcement to ensure the safety of Arabs/Muslims here in America. I think it would result in a massive backlash.

Already much of Western Europe is alarmed at the “Muslim threat” within their midst and there is serious consideration being given to candidates that openly support mass expulsions.

You may still disagree, but I’m more and more certain that Islam (traditional Sharia-based Islam) is simply incompatible with the West. There is no doubt that Western values and mores are not only incompatible, but repulsive to the Islamic world.

Moreover, Muslim violence has not been consigned to poor Arabs/Muslims, but very well educated, well-off Arab/Muslims – Mohammed Atta was a Western trained Engineer and the son of an Egyptian physician.

There appears to be no basis for common ground between Islam and the modern West, UNLESS we are going to reconsider D’nesh D’souza’s latest proposal – that since it’s the West’s social Liberalism that angers Muslims and makes radicalizing moderates easier, perhaps we should downplay those things.

That doesn’t appear very likely, at this point.




“The move away from our military response and to eliminate the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps is nothing less than an “unconditional surrender in the WoT,” for those three components comprise our entire WoT!”

“And no, we’re not going to be backing away from that. You COULD even argue that our current actions won’t allow us to later.” (JMK)


“I thought you said you’d be a “VERY HAPPY FELLOW” if we eliminated the above? So you must have been being facetious.

“This thread has become nasty and unproductive, and we both played a part in that. There’s really no point to continue, I don’t dislike you, I just am amazed sometimes at the things you say. You’re never going to budge an inch and neither am I, and I’m tired of the semantic games of “oneupsmanship” we’ve been playing. Noone else is likely even reading it so it’s now just about having the last word. GO ahead and have it. It’s my gift to you. Knock yourself out.” (GZ)


“Yes, that was facetious.

Another attack here would be horrific.

That’s why I don’t understand the knee-jerk response to our military AND our domestic security actions.

While I understand the complaints from Libertarians like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, who argue that we shouldn’t be engaged in such “foreign entanglements.”

I disagree because we live in a very different world, with our dependence on foreign oil and our need to protect our Mideast satellite (Israel), but the view that the WoT is “an excuse for oppression, both foreign and domestic,” appears absurd to me.

And yes, this thread has gotten nasty and contentious.

I don’t recall our earlier disagreements getting this mean-spirited and personal. I believe we’ve spoken past each other and that’s as much my fault as anyone’s. For my part, I must acknowledge that I believed that I initially tried to explain why I disagreed and I felt belittled in response.

I think once those feelings come into a discussion it hinders communication quite a bit.

For my part I’ve wanted to understand why you feel the current economy is undermined by the debt ratio, given the current economic expansion and the subsequent deficit reduction (from 3.8% of GDP in 2003 down to 1.5% of GDP now).

Also I wanted to know why you felt that the U.S. used WMDs as the pretext for invading Iraq, when what we actually did was use the UN’s own Resolution (1441), calling it, before the UNSC signed it, a “last chance” resolution, thereby establishing that as our pretext for invasion.

I’ll acknowledge that I probably didn’t do enough to search out any possible common ground in our stances, but that got increasingly difficult as I perceived you seemed more intent on ridiculing the arguments you disagreed with than refuting them.

I’m still glad we tried.

I said I wanted to give you the last word and I meant it. However you asked a few questions at the end and those I’ll try to answer briefly, I won’t address the bulk of the post as I believe it’s fruitless to continue and I don’t want to keep feeding something that’s just making us both succomb to our more base nature.

JMK - For my part I’ve wanted to understand why you feel the current economy is undermined by the debt ratio, given the current economic expansion and the subsequent deficit reduction (from 3.8% of GDP in 2003 down to 1.5% of GDP now).

Me – I never claimed it was the current economy, I am concerned with the economy over the long term. I’m concerned with where we’ll be ten years from now. These things run in cycles and if you add too much weight on one end you can reach a tipping point. That’s what happened in nations such as Japan. I don’t judge the president’s economic policy merely based upon today, he should be concerned with the economy ten years from now, not just his term. I’m aware we disagree, but that’s the point where we do. Arguing it anymore is worthless.

JMK - Also I wanted to know why you felt that the U.S. used WMDs as the pretext for invading Iraq, when what we actually did was use the UN’s own Resolution (1441), calling it, before the UNSC signed it, a “last chance” resolution, thereby establishing that as our pretext for invasion.

Me – Because they did use WMD’s as a pretext. Sure not in an “official” sense, but you are intelligent enough to understand what I’m talking about. Condi appearing on tv warning of mushroom clouds, Cheney going on tv stating how we KNOW they have them and where they are, the same and others discussing gliders spraying anthrax and chemical weapons over our cities, the president exaggerating the story of yellowcake uranium in the SOU address, Cheney repeatedly trying to link Iraq to the 9-11 conspiracy even when the links he cites have been refuted by the government. Over and over and over. That is what sold the war to the American people, not the UN resolutions. All ofthis done in the wake of 9-11 when people were all so afraid of what would happen next, it’s fear mongering. That’s also why the congress gave the president the balnk check to go to war in the first place, fear.

As to the resolution itself, you know my problem with that. It’s a UN resolution, if the UN interprets it differently then us we cannot legitimately use it as justification. Because using it implies a UN sanction when there clearly was none. You have to agree with that, unless you want to play semantic games with what the UN said and thereby deny them the right to interpret there own resolution as they see fit. I’ve never claimed we need their sanction, just that we don’t have it and therefore we cannot use their resolution as justification.

I’m glad we tried too, the problem is that with regard to these issues we aren’t disputing the actual facts, we’re merely disputing the interpretation. For example I know you aren’t going to argue about the comments made by Condi et al leading up to war, you’ll just choose to say they’re irrelevant and hold to the literal justification given by the president. Even though the reason you believe we should be there isn’t supported by that literal justification directly. I believe that you wanted us to go in regardless to wage the war on Sharia based Islam. I don’t think you’d have been happy with more resolutions and inspections, right? That’s the thing, you don’t hear the president discussing those resolutions anymore, now it’s about “freedom” and “winning”. To be honest haven’t we already accomplished the objectives behind the original resolution?

Anyway I didn’t intend to reneg on the last word concept, but as I said I didn’t want to leave everything entirely unanswered.

I appreciate your answers.

A couple of points and possibly some unintended questions.

You say, “I am concerned with the economy over the long term. I’m concerned with where we’ll be ten years from now,” but that’s not how we generally view the economy. For better or worse (at various times it can be either) it's viewed in “windows” or snippets.

If we viewed 1998’s or 1999’s economies from that same (debt) perspective, the same thing would have to be said because the national debt went up every one of those years too and what’s more, the economy wasn’t growing as fast (5X as fast as our debt) as it is right now.

The economy today, in fact, the economy over the past 51 months has been very robust. It’s a 51 month surge/boom, that's created 7.5 million new jobs, saw interest rates remain low, while inflation and unemployment rates also remained low, as personal income (has recently risen sharply) and GDP growth has been strong.

My problem with suddenly viewing the national debt as a huge problem that it wasn’t during the previous administration is that it posits a clear double standard.

In the Tech Bubble fueled boom of the late 1990s we didn’t pay down the actual debt at all. We reduced the deficit and grew the economy so that the debt’s percentage of the GDP was reduced.

That’s also happening now with the economy growing 5X faster than the debt and the deficit having been halved over the past two years.

GZ, there are any number of disingenuous pundits who still erroneously (deliberately and flagrantly so) claim that “the tax cuts have reduced revenues," as if an increase in the income tax rate would increase tax revenues!

Increasing the income tax rate generally results in reduced tax revenues because those targeted (higher income earners), can afford to respond to that incentive to defer more of their compensation/income “tax deferred.”

In truth, those tax cuts have reduced the deficit by half by actually increasing revenues.

At any rate, with the deficit dropping and the economy growing some 5X faster than the debt, we’re in as good a shape debt-wise as we were in 1998 0r 1999, in terms of ultimately reducing its percentage of GDP.

I know many people don’t like the current occupant of the WH and I am banking on disliking him more myself as I’m almost certain he’ll soon look to forge some kind of “guest worker” (amnesty program) with the Dems and may even possibly consider raising or eliminating the cap on Social Security – which would be the largest tax hike in history and the absolute worst compromise imaginable, turning SS into a veritable welfare program, one which fewer and fewer people will ultimately support.

Still, despite all that I believe he does warrant the same credit his predecessor got for the late 1990s boom which wasn’t as prolonged or as vibrant as the current one is at this time.

I also give him credit for finally and belatedly getting America involved in the military WoT, which I believe is a necessity, and you apparently don’t, even though it took 9/11 for him to do that.

I think we should’ve engaged by the mid-1990s, just as a I fear that any pullback now will only result in a longer, larger and more expensive (in both blood and treasure) war later.

Still, those are two huge things.

They don’t erase his poor position on the border and failing to rein in some reckless GOP Congressional spending, but they’re two very big items in my view.

As to Iraq, you’re arguing a technicality, we both are.

I’ve asserted that England and the U.S. made clear from the start, that from their perspective, 1441 was a “Last Chance resolution” for Iraq.

The UN had indeed ignored Saddam’s refusal to comply with 12 previous Resolutions over the previous decade and England, America, Australia, etc (that Anglo-American alliance) decided that come what may, 1441 would be enforced even if they had to do it without UNSC approval.

The fact that Saddam’s violation of 1441 was the actual pretext for the invasion does not imply UNSC approval. We used the UN and then when it backed off, we ignored them (much like Saddam and others had) and enforced it ourselves, because we feared that Saddam’s “deterrence by doubt” may not have been all bluster.

My belief than and now was that about the same level of proof of Saddam’s support for international terrorism existed as existed for Syria and Iran (then...and now), which is to say a measure that would fall far short of meeting the “burden of proof” in any reasonable court of law.

That was and is of no consequence to me.

Our intelligence and military leaders believe that Iran, Iraq and Syria have all supported and sponsored international terrorism and they are not beholden to make an “ironclad” case before the American people before we engage.

I have always been baffled by the people who did the right thing vis-à-vis the Balkans and didn’t look to publicly debate us going in on what appeared, from a moral view to be the wrong side (the Muslim Albanians in Kosovo were the first to initiate genocide in that region), not to mention that that campaign was also an “unprovoked” and UN opposed” action.

In my view, that very same standard (the military, governmental and intelligence leaders know best) should’ve been the one used for Iraq, as well.

I hold G W Bush & Clinton to the same standards. In Clinton’s favor he seemed to see the genius of Gingrich – it was Gingrich’s ideas that created the prosperity of the late 1990s and brought the GOP to preeminence. The current GOP and GW get poor marks for their failing to uphold the Gingrich principles.

I still don’t know why we backed the “rat” in that Balkan fight described as “a fight between a rat and a snake,” but I take on faith that both our Military and Intel agencies knew where America’s best interests lay in that particular fight.

I give Clinton high marks for embracing welfare reform and much of the rest of the Gingrich domestic agenda, but I fault that administration for not engaging us in a war that had been relentlessly waged against us since 1993.

The unfortunate thing about the Balkan campaign was that in retrospect it must’ve appeared like capitulation to the Islamists to the radicals and that and Mogadishu emboldened them.

I give G W low marks for not engaging in the WoT before 9/11/01 despite being told by the outgoing administration that OBL and other radical Muslims must be priority ONE.

There are few “all bad” administrations (Carter was the one that I can recall), most are a mixed bag.

I find it odd that people would accuse those like myself and perhaps CRB & Barry who see the good and bad in G W as “Bush lovers” (not you so much, but most on the Liberal portion of the spectrum) – Clinton worked a fine domestic agenda post-1995, or “post-Gingrich revolution,” and despite the Tech Bubble (I believe “scam”) the late 1990s is one of the best economic periods, in my view, right up there with Ike’s and the current 51 month expansion.

I blame both Bush & Clinton for being poor on the WoT pre-9/11.

I think the previous administration’s allowing Bernie Schwartz of Loral to sell guidance systems to China and their myopic dealings (bribings) of North Korea set the stage for much of the posturing we’ve seen from Ahmadinajad and other rogue leaders today.

Bush’s mishandling of the porous southern border, especially post-9/11 is shameful, as is the failure to rein in some of the more egregious Congressional spending – the NCLB Act and the prescription drug boondoggle are two of the worst examples.

The fundamental disagreement I’ve had with those who’ve opposed the war in Iraq and denied the Bush economy is over the issue of what I see as a double standard.

There was no such outcry over the equally UN-opposed and unprovoked action in the Balkans and there was no doomsday warnings over the national debt (that rose steadily during the late ‘90s as it has for almost all of the past forty years) to deny the economic boom of the late ‘90s, as there are on both fronts today with this equally flawed President.