Thursday, December 25, 2008

Incredible Christmas Story!

I found this this morning and think it supports what I was saying two posts down. Tell me there hasn't been significant and tangible progress in Iraq because of our involvement there. It can be said that this was always possible, that it could have eventually come to this, but there was no such movement in this direction until George W. Bush made the decision to go in and oust Hussein. Even the kids notice the improvements.

99 comments:

Democracy Lover said...

It is truly a great and wonderful thing that the puppet government installed during the illegal US occupation of Iraq has seen fit to ingratiate itself with its overseers by making Christmas a legal holiday.

Having Christmas be a holiday in Iraq shows that the 4,000+ Americans have not died in vain, and makes a great Christian blessing of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Why worry about the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries when we can see Iraqi kids getting plastic toys under a fake tree with Chinese-made twinkling lights?

Jesus would be proud of George W. Bush for putting His holiday celebration above that silly idea of respect for human life.

Teresa said...

I look forward to the day that Bill O'Reilly's followers kick in my door, shoot up my house, and "liberate" me from my desire to say "happy holidays" and plaster 'Merry Christmas' banners all over my house to celebrate my freedom.

I don't realize how much I want that now, but I imagine it will become quite clear to me what a great thing it is once it happens.

Marty said...

Top Ten Myths About Iraq, 2008

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

I guess you can find whatever you like on the web these days. How do you know YOUR source isn't full of crap?

Marshall Art said...

Teresa,

Is this your new fantasy for '09? What in the wide, wide world of sports leads you to believe that anyone, least of all followers of Bill O'Reilly, would care about how an individual expresses herself during the holiday season? O'Reilly's concerns have nothing whatsoever to do with the individual's beliefs about Christmas. Sheesh!

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

What absolute and incontrovertable proof do you have that shows the government of Iraq to be a "puppet government" of the United States? How do you get around the ultimatums of several UN resolutions, the coalition of all but 3 of the first Gulf War allies, and the gratitude of the Iraqi people in insisting there was anything illegal about our invasion of Husseins' Iraq? How can you weigh YOUR BDS influenced outrage against the sorrows of all those who still don't know the details of their relatives' disappearances? Are the celebrations of all nations following the concusions of previous wars somewhow an insult to all who died during those wars? Are they in anyway dismissive of those sacrificed? What kind of goofy shit are you spewing now? The fact that they hold such celebrations in Iraq now, as well as the freedom to hurl shoes at people with whom one might stupidly disagree means EXACTLY that those people lost haven't died in vain. You have absolutely no clue about the respect for human life if you think the Iraqi people, as well as their neighbors, were better off with Hussein in power. What incredible stupidity to suggest that fighting evil shows any lack of respect for life because lives are lost in the struggle! There is a major malfunction in your ability to process the data of reality.

Marty said...

"How do you know YOUR source isn't full of crap?"

I could ask you the same question.

But, you see, truth is I don't know for sure. On the other hand neither do you. My source, Juan Cole, is Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan which, in my mind, makes him more knowlegable than me or even you Marshall.

Andrew Clarke said...

This is an incredible story! If Iraq moves towards the tolerance of all faiths then it will be a much safer place to live that it was previously. Good to read your posts again, by the way. All the best.

Marshall Art said...

Correction: In my 12/26 9:31PM comment, I addressed it to Geoffrey when I was actually responding to Democracy Lover, who apparently limits himself greatly as to what he'd do to retain, regain or obtain democracy. My apologies to Geoffrey.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Did Juan Cole ever leave Michigan?

Ms.Green said...

Awesome story. Thanks for the link.

Jim said...

Did Juan Cole ever leave Michigan?

Actually, Juan Cole is an accomplished and well-respected expert on the Middle East.

How about your source?

Marshall Art said...

Thanks, Jim. I've heard that before. Where was it? Oh yeah, right here, a few comments above yours.

Marty said...

"Did Juan Cole ever leave Michigan?"

Yes. He was a military brat and has lived extensively in the Middle East.

Jim said...

Gee, thanks for reminding me.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Upon further review, your offering of Juan Coles' stats actually support the premise of this post. It has been my position, based on what I read, hear and see, that there is indeed progress in Iraq despite existing challenges. So, presenting the stats you did supports the challenges side, but does little to refute the progress side. Indeed, this is a significant point. We hear plenty of the challenges, some real, some imagined, by our friends in the lefty media, but rarely do we hear reports like the video I presented, except by non-mainstream sources in most cases. To put it another way, the right does not dismiss the negatives, but the left seems to prefer there be no positives. This is a problem and shows how the left (in general) is not concerned with facts if the facts prevent their ascension to higher political power.

4simpsons said...

"How do you get around the ultimatums of several UN resolutions, the coalition of all but 3 of the first Gulf War allies, and the gratitude of the Iraqi people in insisting there was anything illegal about our invasion of Husseins' Iraq?"

Good points, Marshall. My favorite video about the Iraq War was the one with clip after clip of leading Democrats talking tough about going back in, using violence as necessary, etc. (Clinton, Gore, Daschl, etc.). Then Bush does exactly what they threatened to do and they all scurry away like rats. Shocking.

4simpsons said...

Just happened to see some of the "war monger" quotes on another blog this morning -- http://www.rightklik.net/2008/12/warmongers.html

Here's a sample:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Nancy Pelosi (warmonger), December 16, 1998.

Marty said...

Yep 4Simpsons that's exactly the way it went down. Both democrats and republicans are responsible for this mess.

How about we work together to help those troops who have now come home and need our support more than ever. Ya with me?

Mark said...

A caller on a talk show the other day made an excellent point about people like DL and Geoffrey and other monnbats.

He said, (and I paraphrase) Why is it that "they" murder innocents by the thousands and the Liberals don't blink an eye, but if we strike back militarily, we are the "monsters"?

DL needs to go live under Sharia law for a while if he thinks The United States is such an evil horrible country.

There is another name for those who hate their own country-- "traitors".

hashfanatic said...

"He said, (and I paraphrase) Why is it that "they" murder innocents by the thousands and the Liberals don't blink an eye, but if we strike back militarily, we are the "monsters"?.."

was that by any chance the prager show, lol?

if so, i think i may have heard that in passing, myself

mark, right now, folks on both sides of the cultural divide are honestly flummoxed on how to communicate with each other, so vast is the ideological gulf

in the absence of clarity of thought and purpose, folks just naturally substitute ideologically inspired cliches and catch phrases in a vain attempt to express themselves

i do it too, probably more of us then realize do it as well

perhaps such gaps are not meant to be bridged, it may not be God's Perfect Will for us to "tolerate" that which we find repellent and false, for it is not our province to go against our inward witness, much less hope to convince

well, that's my half-assed attempt to make sense of it all

Dan Trabue said...

Not a bad take on it, Hashfanatic.

Someone asked:

Why is it that "they" murder innocents by the thousands and the Liberals don't blink an eye

You're supposing that it is true that liberals don't blink an eye at human rights violations. This is, of course, a falsehood.

Let's think this through, shall we? WHO is it that supports organizations that investigate and monitor human rights violations - organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch? These are typically progressive organizations run by progressive types.

Liberals ARE concerned about human rights violations. And that is true whether those violations are relatively "small" violations committed by the US or large ones committed by more oppressive regimes.

So, the question is NOT why don't liberals care about the actions of other nations? - clearly we do. The question is WHY aren't conservatives concerned when their own nation violates human rights?

The other side of this point is that we are US citizens and responsibility begins at home. As Jesus noted: before you tell someone to remove the speck from their eye, FIRST remove the log from your own. It is imperative that the US lead by example.

IF it is our position that it is okay to invade a nation based on the fear that this nation MIGHT be a threat to us at some point in the future, then we are making the case that this is an acceptable philosophy. Clearly it is not acceptable for nations to invade other nations based on the fear that there MIGHT be a threat at some point in the future.

Lead by example, set our shining light on a hill to be seen by all, as the Bible says. If we drag our torch through the scum of torture and propping up oppressive regimes, and engaging in questionably legal tactics, we have lost the moral authority that our ideals should stand for.

Marty said...

Dan, I think Mark might have been talking about abortion when he quoted the "murder of innocents by the thousands and the Liberals don't blink an eye". I could be wrong, of course. But that was my take on it.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

My name has cropped up twice and I'm not even involved!

First, making Christmas a legal holiday in Iraq might be considered progress, considering you cross the border in to Saudi Arabia, and Christianity itself is illegal. So, I suppose, yeah, one could consider it progress. There is a small, and getting smaller, Christian community in Iraq that is older than the Bible. Former Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz is a Christian.

I do not think this is why the United States invaded Iraq. I do not think we invaded Iraq to get rid of a horrible, evil leader. The ostensible reason for invading Iraq and toppling the Hussein regime was the oft-repeated assertion - based on cooked evidence that was considered bunk even at the time - had weapons of mass destruction, or (as was sometimes said) had the capability to build said weapons. Neither assertion was true.

The US should not be in the business of toppling regimes led by bad men and women. If we were, we would be in most countries of the world, spreading cheer and goodwill at the point of our M-5 rifles.

This is not to say that I think Saddam was a wonderful guy who loved puppies, kittens, and small children. He wasn't.

As for Mark's comment, the reason we Liberals do not bat an eye at the slaughter of thousands of innocents is that we believe, with all sorts of justification, that no such thing is taking place. He believes differently. The gap between us is filled in with science, reason, actual thought, interaction with real people in the world without the blinders of ideology, and a whole host of other things. I do not believe him to be a dangerous fanatic who threatens all things bright and beautiful because he believes that a fetus is the same thing as the person standing next to me in the check out line in the supermarket. He thinks I am a dangerous person - indeed a "traitor" - because I happen to think that the unnecessary death and destruction we have wrought for no justifiable reason and to no rational purpose is a crime against humanity. All I can say about his opinion is, "Hahahahahahaha!"

4simpsons said...

Of course Mark was referring to abortion. You have to be anti-science, anti-God or just ignorant of the facts to deny the fact that abortion kills innocent human beings.

This is not that complicated. Go see any secular embryology textbok and see when life begins (hint: conception) - http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html . Successful abortions terminate the lives of innocent human beings.

Marshall Art said...

For Dan and Geoffrey,

We didn't invade Iraq because we thought it "might" be a threat. Hussein had already proven he was a threat through his past actions and his attempts to shoot down our planes patrolling the no-fly zone. He had designs on the life of Bush 41. That alone is an act of war, to attempt an assassination of a country's leader.

It is also important to remind those like Geoffrey who refuse to acknowledge it, but WMDs were only one of a long list of reasons for going in. And I find it somewhere between naive and dishonest to suggest that because Hussein wasn't that close to having a fully workable nuclear weapons program in place, that the Bush admin and all the other coalition members who were dealing with the same intel was wrong to act as they did. Are we supposed to wait until assholes actually are able to kill us before we seek to disarm or disable their ability to do so? Do you really call that a responsible attitude for the leader of the free world to have? What the hell's wrong with you? This scumbag has attacked his neighbors, our allies and his own people, using non-nuclear forms of WMDs, and you want to pretend he was no threat? Wake the hell up.

And for Geoffrey alone,

You've had ample opportunity to provide any science, reason or actual thought to support the notion that a fetus is not worthy of the same right to life enjoyed by those of us who have been lucky enough to have made it passed our mammas' thighs. As I said at the other blog, you've been thoroughly schooled and have never been able to counter any of it. It's all been subjective and selfish reasoning.

BUT! Save your abortion response for the other blog, as this post does not concern the topic of abortion.

4simpsons said...

"Yep 4Simpsons that's exactly the way it went down."

Always glad to find someone who agrees that the Dems said the same things as President Bush -- often even more boldly than he did. He just happened to follow through after Hussein blew off the Dems and the UN for years. For a few years the world knew we'd do what we said. That can prevent many things from happening.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I wasn't the one who brought it up, Marshall.

Speaking of other things discussed in other places, I thought I would offer a piece of counter-evidence to your claim here in this post. Check it out. Do they cancel each other out? Do they carry the same moral weight? I'm not making any such claims. Just let me put it all together, then check it out. I'd be interested in your take.

Mark said...

Actually, I wasn't talking about the modern holocaust of legalized abortion. If I was referring to that, I would have said millions of innocent lives.

Since 9/11 over 7 million babies have been murdered in the womb.

What the caller I mentioned was referring to was the way the left screams about "war crimes" and "atrocities" committed by the United States but rushes to the defense of all those scumbags who blow up innocent people, such as the miscreants who flew airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Indeed, They even elected a personal friend of that type of animal to the Presidency.

But I digress. The caller to the radio show I mentioned was talking about the Israeli attacks on Gaza, which was a long time coming. Perhaps too long. Hamas has been lobbing bombs and missiles into Israel for decades. The news media cries about the few innocent deaths resulting from collateral damage and excuses the terrorists who started the whole thing to begin with.

Mark said...

People who hate their own country are traitors.

"As a man thinketh in his heart so is he..." (Proverbs 23:7)

He hates his country, so he is as traitorous as a man who sells military secrets to the enemy.

Or divulges classified information on the pages of the New York Slimes.

Jim said...

rushes to the defense of all those scumbags who blow up innocent people, such as the miscreants who flew airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

I've never heard anybody defend these people. Who has?

They even elected a personal friend of that type of animal to the Presidency.

What an ugly, stupid, false and offensive thing to write!

hashfanatic said...

"...I've never heard anybody defend these people. Who has?"

oh, i have certainly have, to be honest

in fact, i've broken bread with them, i've even had a few close friends come to that very conclusion

that doesn't mean there weren't those among them, who knew to close ranks with the nation, even though they profoundly believed in our complicity in the events of that time

"What an ugly, stupid, false and offensive thing to write!"

jim, i am not offended by mark's statement in this instance

it may indeed be ugly, but whether or not it is true is strictly a matter of opinion at this point, since americans have absolutely NO idea of who this creature is, where he is from, and, most importantly, what he represents, and whose interests he represents

in fact, even hardline subgroups within the left, such as gay activists and varying, differentiating groups on each side of the continuing middle east quagmire, have been left scratching their heads, wondering exactly who it was they supported so vociferously, questioning whether or not their blind devotion was well-placed, a question i answered for them personally earlier this year, when i "voted for my feet"

so, no, i don't believe it's truly offensive at all, given the suppressive tactics the obamabot machine used to stifle us

for us, your righteous indignation comes just a wee bit too late

hashfanatic said...

"Perhaps too long. Hamas has been lobbing bombs and missiles into Israel for decades...."

well, sderot in particular, the main lynchpin being used in the current bombings by air, has only really been a significant hamas target over the last few years

nonetheless, the gaza incursion was well-planned by barak's own admission as far back as six months ago, it was indeed accelerated because of obama coming in

the jews have been made arrogant, by decades of unwise unconditional support by successive republican and democratic, but, particularly the neocon-dominated conservative machine and the well-funded israel lobbies

it is only logical to assume their next logical trajectory is ground war and reoccupation in gaza, followed by successive invasions of lebanon, possibly syria, but most likely iran, as the final coup de grace

so, let's not buy into the fairy tale of this conflict being directed at hamas alone, as simply a move against "terrorism"

even unnerved americans at the time of the iraq invasion, would have put their feet down, had they known what was portrayed as a localized police action in iraq only, could have morphed into several years of protracted, ruinously expensive, and ultimately fruitless militarized crusade

afghanistan wasn't even appropriately dealt with, al qaeda was actually strengthened, and a supposedly "progressive" president swoops onto the scene, with an inexplicable hardon for nuclear pakistan, and no less than brezenski in tow

i essentially agree that israel was going to take some sort of action, i'm simply stating that the level of it was wildly disproportionate to the threat posed, and it's obvious they have just as big an end game in mind, as the muzzies do

and none of them are our allies, make no mistake about it

hashfanatic said...

"It is also important to remind those like Geoffrey who refuse to acknowledge it, but WMDs were only one of a long list of reasons for going in."

perhaps, marshall, but you conveniently fail to mention that, if that were true, it automatically would have followed that, once saddam hussein was located, tried, and deposed, our troops would have pretty much turned on their heels and bugged out for home, ending the sad (and largely unacknowledged, I might add) parade of coffins and the bottomless money pit this little escapade had saddled us with

yet, there was never any exit strategy in place, there weren't even PROPOSALS, or preparations for an exit strategy

why?

there WAS zero transparency, much breast-beating, yellow magnets, and flag-waving, and, when that wore off and the results and stated objectives no longer jibed with the administration's rhetoric, the media-driven partisan bickering was there to fill THAT void in the public consciousness

most americans wanted to trust the administration, and took them at their word, despite their better judgment....they simply never imagined what bremer, rumsfeld, and the other thieves could be putting together, never connected the dots...some still cannot

in short, marshall, what i'm saying is, you need to check that list of reasons you've been working from, and check it for veracity, in the context of what we know now, as opposed to what we told then

Marshall Art said...

Hash,

I want to first again say how incredibly refreshing it is to read comments of a truly thoughtful and mostly logical nature. And then you go and ruin it with your Israel comments. But, it gives me a chance to comment on the recent events in Gaza.

I don't know what can be considered arrogant about a country constantly beseiged by hateful neighbors. I have no doubt you'd sing a different tune if Canada and Mexico were lobbing mortar rounds and missiles into our country day after day, in some cases, and definitely month after month. Just as Geoffrey suggested that Hussein's lack of a workable nuclear program rendered our decision to unseat him unjustified, you now make the claim that Israel's response was over the top. This is ridiculous. Do you not slap a mosquito out of existence for the slight attack on your person? Isn't that response "wildly disproportionate to the threat posed"? So Hamas isn't competent or capable of dishing out greater death and destruction. It isn't for lack of trying. And there's never ANYTHING in their rhetoric that supports the idea that they will ever seriously consider Israel as having a right to exist. Even now, as they stand as the true agressors in the eyes of reasonable observers everywhere, they insist that somehow Israel is in the wrong for finally acting to put an end to it. They have the audacity to claim they are being victimized.

And what of the Palestinians in general? When will they understand the true source of their misery is within rather than without? In Iraq, the many who fought against us finally realized that AlQueda was the cause of so much death and misery and flipped sides. How stupid are the Palestinians if they can't see what's going on? Would you accept aid from a party that also is the reason the aid is needed?

Israel is justified, in my opinion, if they DO take back Gaza and any other territory from which attacks have been launched against them. And until the Palestinians rise up against their own scumbags purposely existing in their midst to further ignite anti-Israeli sentiment every time Israel responds to attacks, they have no claim to a land of their own, particularly if that land comes from Israel in any way, shape or form. As far as I'm concerned, they must lay down their arms and agression against Israel (including an end to teaching their children the lies they teach them about Jews) and spend at least a generation proving that they no longer wish to annihilate Israel, and then perhaps true talks of a Palestinian state would be warranted.

Today, I heard a piece of an interview with Jonathan Medved by his brother Michael. Jonathan lives in Jerusalem and is often called upon to give an Israeli perspective. He says that for the most part, Bethlehem, which is not controlled by the Jews, is rarely a source of trouble. They get along well in his opinion. So it can be done. When will Hamas and their supporters get it?

SIDEBAR: Someone recently commented that Iraqi tribal leaders were paid to fight along side the US military. I just read where they were paid by Petraeus because he learned they were being paid to fight against us. Petraeus simply figured if they'll fight for money, it'll be better if they're paid to fight for us instead of against us. So, if the enemy is defeated, or rendered incapable of paying these guys, it seems they won't fight at all if they're aren't paid by anyone, so at some point, we won't have to continue paying them at all. Seems logical. Time will tell.

Teresa said...

Marshall Art,

Meant to humerous. Bill O'Reilly's followers don't have to kick in my door. They just walk in to my house like they own it, crash at my place when they visit so they don't have to pay for a hotel, give my kids his books for Christmas presents, and criticise my "clueless liberalness" in one breath, and borrow money and ask favors from me with the next.

Teresa said...

marshall,

You must not watch O'REilly, though, hes got hours of footage ranting about how people don't say "Merry Christmas" , and now I have had more than one person get more than a little belligerant about me either not saying it, or saying it because you shouldn't say it if you don't believe it.

Youo all should really have a little huddle and decide what the politically correct position on Christmas is. I'd be happy to not offend you, but you need a coherent position. And it wouldl help if you could wear a little fish or something so I'd know who I needed to walk on eggshells around.

hashfanatic said...

"I have no doubt you'd sing a different tune if Canada and Mexico were lobbing mortar rounds and missiles into our country day after day, in some cases, and definitely month after month...."

but, of course i would, marshall!

because we are not israelis, we are AMERICANS, and my allegiance is to america first and only, and not israel, or american jews!

you've absolutely hit on my very point, you simply aren't ready to connect the dots and realize that we have our own national identity to protect, and our own national priorities, not any other sovereign land!

"They have the audacity to claim they are being victimized...."

the key to this, marshall, is that israel has the same, if not arguably superior, technology to enable them to microtarget the actual islamic savages within gaza, because we GAVE IT TO THEM!

yet, even with all of our faults, we always choose to use technology to save innocent life, whereas the jews continually disregard all sense of discernment in terms of basic moral choices during wartime (and make no mistake, this is war for them)...in other words, they are repeating the failed strategies of the lebanon invasion, which ALSO was painted by american neocons as a rousing success for israel, while israel was forced to admit their own misguided folly and strategic breakdown, in the eyes of the world

"And what of the Palestinians in general? When will they understand the true source of their misery is within rather than without?"

marshall, in the eyes of the palestinians, they see both hamas AND the jews as the sources of their misery

regrettably for them, they have little choice in the matter, and time alone will tell whether or not they will have the latitude to bring abu mazen (hardly the perfect alternative) back to the table on their behalf, or if they retreat into an even more radicalized, fundamentalist direction (yes, i DO realize the role that what you would refer to as "islamofascism" plays into the matter

but that is a side issue from israeli officials, who perpetually slough off decision-making responsibility on the idf, from ceding the moral high ground the relentless kassam rockets afforded them by overdoing their response by saturation-bombing random gaza neighborhoods, miles from terrorist installations, unnecessarily heightening an existing humanitarian crisis

because american conservatives stick their heads in the sand on this, america's interests are forced to concede further in the region, eventually endangering OUR military assets...it's simply not worth it, and intellectually dishonest, to give the radical american and international left this ammunition

"As far as I'm concerned, they must lay down their arms and agression against Israel (including an end to teaching their children the lies they teach them about Jews) and spend at least a generation proving that they no longer wish to annihilate Israel, and then perhaps true talks of a Palestinian state would be warranted..."

and that is the boilerplate neoconservative position, as dictated by the purveyors of PNAC, as well as many political activist groups, and zionist and even christian fringe elements, and i understand that this is view held by a certain number of americans

nonetheless, that does not make that political philosophy advantageous or even feasible to the interests of america as a whole, much less her few remaining true allies, which is why i reject such unconditional, absolute support for the jews

"Today, I heard a piece of an interview with Jonathan Medved by his brother Michael. Jonathan lives in Jerusalem and is often called upon to give an Israeli perspective. He says that for the most part, Bethlehem, which is not controlled by the Jews, is rarely a source of trouble. They get along well in his opinion. So it can be done. When will Hamas and their supporters get it?.."

to a point, i enjoy medved's program

but it must be made clear to anyone living under a delusion, that medved's first loyalty is not to america, rather his loyalty to america comes SECOND

still commendable, as his new book is interesting (and at least puts up a good front), but his loyalty is SECONDARY

and bethlehem is most definitely NOT usually a place of peace and safety for christians, who are my primary concern, i have been there many times and assure you, if this is the model jonathan medved holds up as acceptable for "peace" at this point, for his people vis-a-vis ours, we will continue to be in a world of hurt, as the pallies are the current savages, but the jews were only marginally better to contend with, ask any franciscan

"As far as I'm concerned, they must lay down their arms and agression against Israel (including an end to teaching their children the lies they teach them about Jews) and spend at least a generation proving that they no longer wish to annihilate Israel, and then perhaps true talks of a Palestinian state would be warranted..."

this will never happen, not even a pretense of it

"So, if the enemy is defeated, or rendered incapable of paying these guys, it seems they won't fight at all if they're aren't paid by anyone, so at some point, we won't have to continue paying them at all. Seems logical...."

yes, but that would be according to OUR parameters of what constitutes logic!

muslims have an entirely different way of thinking, that precludes your definition of "success" in this regard

marshall, imho, what you have never understood is that iraq and the persians had a tribal system of government that actually worked out well for them, it was exactly this misguided western willingness to impose forced equivalency between sunni and shi'ite i opposed from day one, as it is not worth one penny of our american national wealth, nor one member of our american national treasure, our military

like i always say, i'm not in it for any short-term duration, i aim to go the distance

happy new year

hashfanatic said...

"...give my kids his books for Christmas presents..."

teresa, hee hee, jonah goldberg's nasty little book is being given away on the streets here!

"Youo all should really have a little huddle and decide what the politically correct position on Christmas is."

easy! that would be, "Merry Christmas"!! :)

"And it wouldl help if you could wear a little fish or something so I'd know who I needed to walk on eggshells around..."

all i am asking is for our churches not to be burnt down, particularly when i and my family happen to be in it, by guttersnipes in "flying spaghetti monster" tshirts, who believe they know it all, yet seem unacquainted with the concept of "frequent use shampoo" or any sort of public civility

i've done nothing to meet such a horrific fate

hashfanatic said...

"And until the Palestinians rise up against their own scumbags purposely existing in their midst to further ignite anti-Israeli sentiment every time Israel responds to attacks, they have no claim to a land of their own, particularly if that land comes from Israel in any way, shape or form."

marshall, gaza is israel's concentration camp for the palestinians, and no amount of ideological argument or saber rattling from outsiders can change that simple fact

it is ESSENTIAL for america's survival that all financial and military aid to israel be cut within five years, or sooner

it's a luxury we are no longer in a position to provide to this protectorate, be it friend or foe, but never a true ally

Marshall Art said...

Teresa,

I'm aware of O'Reilly's concern regarding the leftist attacks on the religious basis for Christmas. I'm of the same mindset. However, I would not "force" a "Merry Christmas" on anyone. If you prefer "Happy Holidays", that's your business. But for a retail store to go out of their way to avoid any mention of religious expression in their advertisements or PR methods in some misguided and unnecessary attempt to prevent offending a tiny portion of the public, an extremely tiny portion at that, is just goofy and an affront to the vast majority of their patrons. It is also, on the part of some, to be a very real attempt to secularize our society against the will of the majority. Now, I say "tiny percentage" because even amongst the atheists, agnostics and non-Christian members of our society are those who enjoy even the Christ-centered carols and decor of the season.

As to those who walk through your door, it sounds like a personal problem you have with relatives and friends and hardly indicative of the overall attitude of Christians over this issue.

Dan Trabue said...

is just goofy and an affront to the vast majority of their patrons

Are the vast majority of Christians so easily affronted? None in my group of Christians (including my traditional Southern Baptist parents and many of my old friends) could so easily offended that a store saying "Happy Holidays" would grieve us.

Just my guess, but I'd think the "vast majority" of folk - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist or otherwise - don't mind "Happy Holidays" OR "Merry Christmas," as long as it is spoken with a kind smile and good intentions.

Marshall Art said...

Hash,

"because we are not israelis, we are AMERICANS, and my allegiance is to america first and only, and not israel, or american jews!"

Does this mean you would accept no support from allies or friendly nations, or even reject any? Lending support to allies does not in any way imply misplaced allegiance. If your friend was being harrassed by some jerk, would you refuse help or support because your allegiance is to yourself first? We have other allies in the world, but do we limit or refuse to support one of them because the rest do? If your other friends are unconcerned, or even siding with the harrasser of the aforementioned hypothetical, do you immediately assume it proper to suspend your support when your friends woes are unprovoked? Whence comes this attitude?

"yet, even with all of our faults, we always choose to use technology to save innocent life, whereas the jews continually disregard all sense of discernment in terms of basic moral choices during wartime..."

Two things wrong here: libs don't agree with the first part of this statement. I'll leave you to deal with that. The second part, regarding the Jews sense of discernment is a personal opinion for which I see little evidence. They, like us, have been bending over backwards to avoid collateral damage. This is a difficult proposition against a foe that purposely positions themselves within the general population. But when the choice is our people or theirs, theirs loses. Israel feels the same way, and still they try to limit such casualties. Hamas doesn't care for either side's citizenry. They attack civilians routinely and they don't separate themselves from their own people to avoid or limit their suffering.

This action is not like the recent Lebanon situation at all and I don't think you could offer too many "neocons" that saw that as anything resembling any kind of success, rousing or otherwise. More accurate is to say conservatives saw it as an impotent response and uncharacteristic for the Israelis that quite possibly strengthened the resolve of Hamas, in much the same way as our impotent responses of the past encouraged AlQueda against us resulting in 9/11.

"marshall, in the eyes of the palestinians, they see both hamas AND the jews as the sources of their misery..."

Exactly my point. This sorry perspective is also enforced and encouraged by the misplaced sympathies of lefty and anti-Israel world opinion. Golda was right. Aggression will end when the Pallies love their children more than they hate Israel. But until then, they must be constantly reminded and shown that their hatred for Israel is what brings about their own misery. True allies speak such truths and I hope we ratchet up our efforts in this.

" but that is a side issue from israeli officials, who perpetually slough off decision-making responsibility on the idf, from ceding the moral high ground the relentless kassam rockets afforded them by overdoing their response by saturation-bombing random gaza neighborhoods, miles from terrorist installations, unnecessarily heightening an existing humanitarian crisis"

This is just goofy. First of all, I say again that the inability or incompetence of Hamas to inflict greater damage is irrelevant against the intention to do so. Thus, the response is in no way over the top and possibly not strong enough. And they are not "saturation bombing", but hitting known Hamas targets purposely placed within civilian populations in order to glean as much international sympathy from idiots around the world should Israel respond forcefully to the constant missile attacks. The humanitarian crisis is of their own making and in my mind preferable to the humanitarian crisis of constant missile attacks in Israel. In other words, there would be NO humanitarian crises if Hamas didn't exist.

"because american conservatives stick their heads in the sand on this, america's interests are forced to concede further in the region, eventually endangering OUR military assets...it's simply not worth it, and intellectually dishonest, to give the radical american and international left this ammunition"

First of all, what's been conceded in the region and secondly, why do you give such power to idiots like the radical Americans and int'l left? Better is to ignore idiots and continue doing the right thing, like supporting our allies.

"and that is the boilerplate neoconservative position, as dictated by the purveyors of PNAC...etc..."

No. It's the position of reasonable observers as dictated by a sense of righteousness and commonsense.

"but it must be made clear to anyone living under a delusion, that medved's first loyalty is not to america, rather his loyalty to america comes SECOND"

That's YOUR opinion and not supportable by anything Medved's ever said. A concern for Israel is NOT a statement of priority in allegiance. It is merely a concern.

"and bethlehem is most definitely NOT usually a place of peace and safety for christians"

Never said "perfect". Just better. I don't believe rockets are being launched from there. And the Jews are MORE than "marginally" better than the Pallies. You can't take their actions, based on the need to constantly be on the alert, as a moral equivalent to the actions of the Hamas type Pallie. Remove the threat and the Jews will soon become easier people with which to deal.

"this will never happen, not even a pretense of it"

Then no state of their own as they are undeserving of such consideration by the int'l community. Thugs don't dictate, they repent.

"yes, but that would be according to OUR parameters of what constitutes logic!"

On the contrary. The act of paying them for their alliance was exactly based on THEIR sense of logic, which is why they were paid. Thus, if they only fight when paid, not paying will result in their not fighting. If it results in their deciding to fight to force payment, then they are thugs and thieves and have provided justification for wiping them out, either by us if we're still involved there, or by the IRaqi goverment.

Hash, what you have never understood is that the tribal system has worked well for those in power, but not as well for those trying to eke out an existence. No one anywhere works better under strife. Maintaining the strict sectarian separations is not a recipe for peace and it never has been as the anti-war people insist has been the case in the region for like, ever. The Iraqi government has begun to got a sense of that as they work together to rebuild their country. It may fall apart down the line or they may come to realize that they can coexist without killing each other just because some are Methodists and other Presbyterians. Time will tell, but just because an inferior thought process has ruled, doesn't mean we have to accept it. If they insist on being a part of the world community, at some point it must be insisted that those 9th century notions, such as female genital mutilation, must be abandoned. We in the west need to increase our influence to encourage such changes rather than accept these heinous practices and pretend we are not then complicit.

Marty said...

A former pastor of mine posted this on his blog yesterday:
Secondly Truth About Gaza

Teresa said...

Marshall,

It would be great if O'Reilly could send out a memo about the distinction between private individuals have the right to say "Happy Holidays", abd private businesses hich do not.

Some people seem to have misunderstood:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html

hashfanatic said...

teresa, in a christian nation, the only acceptable mannerly public greeting IS "merry christmas", jews, atheists, anti-theists, etc. in jewish-owned, etc. businesses are welcome not to assimilate to the traditions of their host nation, if they so choose, just as americans are free to deny them employment in american businesses, or patronize their establishments

it was an unfortunate choice of article, as well as being stale-dated, because this happened in my backyard, on a train i rode daily to school, as a child, well into adulthood

"...One member of the group allegedly yelled, "Oh, Hanukkah. That's the day that the Jews killed Jesus," she said...."


Well, let's take this point by point...what exactly did this individual say, that billions of christians do not already understand, yet are suppressed not to repeat?

"When Adler tried to intercede, a male member of the group punched him, she said..."

what reason was there for the jewish kid to "intervene"? no violence had been provoked, up until this point, when adler chose to escalate matters?

do you believe that adler would have initiated such a beef, had the commenter been black, rather than ukrainian/irish?

"Another passenger, Hassan Askari -- a Muslim student from Bangladesh...."

an ILLEGAL muslim "student", who was actually working off-the-books, ILLEGALLY, at a restaurant in queens....

..."A Muslim-American saved us when our own people were on the train and didn't do anything," Adler said..."

ever wonder WHY that is? a subway car, about to transverse one of the most jewish strongholds in america, and filled with many of them, would have watched (or listened) intently to what had transpired, and made a deliberate decision NOT to intervene, based on whatever perception of wrong vs right?

"Adler pulled the emergency brake and the train stopped at DeKalb Avenue station, where police came on board..."

which just so happens to be a real CRIME! not only is it not permitted to pull the main emergency brake cord in a moving subway car for ANYTHING but a serious mechanical or security-related reason, it is actually foolish and transparently false, for why would any sane, rational individual pull the brake, when the train was already IN THE STATION???

adler was roughed up, pretty much in proportion to that of a barroom brawl (which he had chose to initiate, on a crowded subway train), and proceeded to shop his spiel for no less than a week and a half to sensational new york media outlets, for maximum self-aggrandizement

the kids that smacked him up should have been busted for simple assault, and, iirc, that's exactly how they were processed, and the main miscreant happened to be the son of an nypd sergeant

"Two women who were with a group of 10 rowdy people then began to verbally assault Adler's companions with anti-Semitic language, Hellerstein said..."

except there WAS no "antisemitic language", because there is NOTHING "antisemitic" about the words "jews killing christ", it is a question of jews and certain liberal elements working in concert to restrict americans' right to free speech, with the neocon establishment hopping on the bandwagon, whenever and ALWAYS only when the "self-chosen" are involved

there IS no such thing as a "hate crime", for you show me ONE crime that is meted out in a spirit of love, or even out of indifference

as for fights on the subway, they are regrettably a daily occurrence, in this case a result of entitled, obnoxious brats looking for attention, and drunken, rowdy fools roaming through our facilities and common areas with no sense of restraint or civility, and i assure you this phenomenon existed long before the opening of the new york subway system, or the founding of the state of israel

police are NOT to be called from their duties on nonsense beefs such as this, and the bangladeshi kid should absolutely have been deported, regardless of good deed, if his documentation was not in order

meanwhile, WORKING new yorkers, millions of them, managed to get through their days, and actually share conveyances, public spaces, etc. with no aggravation, threats of violence against each other

all an excellent example of poor judgment, plastic altruism, and stone jungle morals, that i am baffled, teresa, as to how you were using it to make whatever point you were trying to....

hashfanatic said...

marty, regarding "secondly" piece...

that is why they killed rabin in the first place, that is why they forfeited all chances of ever living with their neighbors in peace ever again, from that point forward, such an idea became a largely western notion, with no hope of ever moving forward

it is wise to recall, for those who will instinctively cry "antisemitism!", as reflexively as pavlov's dogs, exactly as the vast majority of american blacks reflexively pull the race card, to gain control and power, and undermine core american values:

how much trouble did america have with the middle east, the muslim world, the "arab street", however you care to refer to it, prior to the establishment of the state of israel in 1948?

how much of our assets, our blood and our treasure, have been wasted on middle east affairs since the establishment of the state of israel in 1948?

trust me, the radical left and extremist neocons CANNOT be the only ones to be debating these questions, for the sake of our national security, they cannot be permitted to own it, they have thoroughly botched the job for the better part of five decades

Dan Trabue said...

in a christian nation, the only acceptable mannerly public greeting IS "merry christmas"

Says who?

THIS Christian (and the Christians around me - including several conservative ones) would be sensitive to who we are wishing well. I, as a Christian, would not deliberately wish a Jewish or Muslim fella, "Merry Christmas!" What meaning would there be in that?

Now, in my neighborhood, there are several Muslim-owned stores and if they wish me "merry christmas" (and they do), then I will respond in kind - they may be Christians or otherwise celebrate Christmas, I don't know.

But in general, as a mere effort at polite-ness - for which Christians have been noted at times - I would wish a stranger or someone I knew to be non-Christian a Happy Holiday. What is there to get worked up about that? It IS a happy holiday, after all.

I'd suggest the "only acceptable mannerly" greetings are the ones that share the most joy and love. Why not?

hashfanatic said...

"If your friend was being harrassed by some jerk, would you refuse help or support because your allegiance is to yourself first?"

depends

if i'd armed my friend, supported my friend to the point of detriment to my own family, and armed my friend to the point where he could no longer claim underdog status in any battle, then a negative dynamic of codependency has developed, and it'd be high time to cut him loose

"Two things wrong here: libs don't agree with the first part of this statement. I'll leave you to deal with that..."

that is patently absurd, since it is largely the province of LEFTISTS, and not the evil "libs", to be only capable of seeing the negative side of america and our characteristics, liberals totally hide under the table and cower when the jewish issue is brought up

"If your other friends are unconcerned, or even siding with the harrasser of the aforementioned hypothetical, do you immediately assume it proper to suspend your support when your friends woes are unprovoked? Whence comes this attitude?"

simple, marshall, we may be "friendly" with israel, but they have never been america's allies, any more than any other middle east nation has been (or could be)

"They, like us, have been bending over backwards to avoid collateral damage...."

until last week, i'd have agreed with that statement, because of sderot, but, again, it was the jews who blew their occupancy on the moral high road to smithereens by indiscriminately hitting targets within gaza that were specifically civilian, it comes from a particular type of arrogance that is uniquely israeli, and jewish, and i'm not going to continue to claim they are justified when, in my opinion, they are not

"Never said "perfect". Just better. I don't believe rockets are being launched from there...."

patience, patience (sigh)....

marshall, i am talking about the security of CHRISTIANS in bethlehem, this is the first year since the wall that the christians have been able to GO there

the jews persecute the muslims, the muslims persecute the christians, the christians reach out to offer help and humanitarian aid to both of 'em, and...the jews persecute the muslims, the...

do you see the perpetual vicious circle? what claim has any jew, or any muslim, over bethlehem?
or jerusalem, for that matter?

we subsidize the jews, we pay their bills, we look the other way for their crimes, and we absorb the weight of the terrorism their choices inspire

why should ANY christian have a moment's worth of fear anywhere in israel?

i place christian concerns ahead of jewish concerns, muslim concerns...ALWAYS...it really can be that simple

"Remove the threat and the Jews will soon become easier people with which to deal..."

marshall, when you factor in the tax dollars i've been forced to surrender to subsidize a thoroughly corrupt nation, the flags on all those graves in OUR cemeteries, the pervasive propaganda in our media, the undermining of our traditions and belief systems by anti-theist organizations funded by secular jews, rampant white-collar crime and foreign domination of our industries, murky espionage networks, and perpetual terrorist incursions, don't you think it's about time that YOU modify your way of thinking, and accept the fact that it is the jews and israel, that owe US???

i don't feel ANY obligation to "remove" whatever threats they've managed to create for themselves, much less the threats they create in their own minds, for the consumption of fools

"Hash, what you have never understood is that the tribal system has worked well for those in power, but not as well for those trying to eke out an existence. No one anywhere works better under strife..."

in other words, in chaos, they can steal, and, in iraq, this is decidedly a GOOD thing

marshall, no matter how much you try, you are simply not going to be able to sell us the neocon wet dream of success or anything resembling it in iraq, the most you can do is mitigate the losses by accepting the realities on the ground, as you eventually will be presented with them

hashfanatic said...

"THIS Christian (and the Christians around me - including several conservative ones) would be sensitive to who we are wishing well. I, as a Christian, would not deliberately wish a Jewish or Muslim fella, "Merry Christmas!" What meaning would there be in that?"

dan, it is not MEANT to carry meaning, i'm not talking about an james taylor concert

and how exactly would you KNOW if the guy who appears muslim to your eyes is not actually a convert to christianity? how would you know the jewish guy isn't actually messianic?

the idea is, ONE people, ONE language, ONE culture, and ONE logical, universal set, of commonly accepted greetings, as a unifying, national force...enough with the failed concept of multiculturalism, i can't think of anything lacking more in meaning than a european-descendent american employee obligated to wish customers "happy kwanzaa", a concocted, fabricated holiday, invented by an anti-american black nationalist radical

"I'd suggest the "only acceptable mannerly" greetings are the ones that share the most joy and love. Why not?"

absolutely not, because i cannot see into the heart of the individual wishing me greetings, and i do not wish to, do not have time to ponder it

let's work on convincing anti-theists and other disruptors to assimilate and conform to our norms of basic civility, from that starting point true love and understanding can blossom, for nothing is expected and demanded in return

Dan Trabue said...

the idea is, ONE people, ONE language, ONE culture, and ONE logical, universal set, of commonly accepted greetings, as a unifying, national force

Again, says who?

You are welcome in this great nation, to your opinion. If you wish to say Merry Christmas, knock yerself out. I and everyone else is welcome to my/our opinions. If we wish to say, Happy Holidays, we shall.

I shall do so as a matter of respect and decency, dependent upon the circumstances. It's not the kind of thing I'll lose sleep over, I'm just saying that just because you and maybe Marshall wish everyone would say Merry Christmas in no way obligates us to bow to your wishes.

Happy New Year.

Teresa said...

Hashfanatic,

Exactly. This is the crux of the culture wars. The assertion that non-Christians have no right to speak...and that somehow it is an assault on Christians for non-Christians to speak.

It is inappropriate to say anything but "Merry Christmas", and it is an affront for non-Christians to say "Merry Christmas" because it is an affront for them to misuse the phrase...

...so in other words, free speech and freedom is only for Christians.

It's a nice gig, if you can pull it off.

Marshall Art said...

No obligation whatsoever, Dan, except that which SHOULD manifest within each of us. As Hash suggests, this is America where Christmas is celebrated as both a Christian AND secular holiday, and the greeting of "Merry Christmas" is most appropriate out of a sense of national unity, if not a sense of decency. That would be decency as a matter of course, with an assumption that the person to whom you are speaking is an American when one is in America. If THAT person wishes to reply, "Happy Holidays" it is indeed a perogative, but, if done with the intent to denigrate Christian sensibilities, they should reconsider, especially since the spirit of the day is one of Goodwill to all men. As for being "offended" if one is not a Christian to hear such a greeting, that person can simply go pound sand up his ass for being such a jerk at Christmas time.

Marshall Art said...

Hash,

You've spent a lot of keystrokes suggesting things for which I see no evidence. You say Israel is NOT an ally and never was. This is your sorry opinion. Provide some support for this. You speak of their corruption and crimes. Provide support. You say that the Jews were "indiscriminately hitting targets within gaza that were specifically civilian". Where do you get this from? I've read just the opposite, that the targets were specifically Hamas targets. You make the charge, you must defend it with some kind of link or reference with more credibility than imaginings or anecdotal story-telling. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

Just what do you need to believe another nation is an ally? I reject the charge that Israel has created their own troubles, as I don't believe that a internationally recognized state of Palestine existed at the time the state of Israel was created. The area known as Palestine was NOT an Arab territory, but an area inhabited by Arabs, Jews and others.

I have no doubt that peace in the region will come only with the abdication of hostile intent by the Arabs of the region. Should Israel once again make the first moves, should they once again enter into any agreement is not preceeded by the Palestinians first giving up their hatred for Israel, then Israel will again be attacked and have to defend herself and they will be back to square one.

Marty's idiot former pastor believes that somehow, the ref saw only the second punch thrown and never saw Israel swing first. That is absolute crap. Israel acts in response to the Pallie's (and Hezb'allah's) first punch every time. This is not any "neocon" fantasy, but an objective observation of reality. I simply don't know what game you're watching, but your view of the situation is totally obscured by something and I don't care how many trips to the Middle East you've made. It hasn't helped your vision at all.

You think Israel's response is over the top. I know it's insufficient if they haven't totally devasted their enemy and forced their compliance with terms of unconditional surrender.

You're obviously a protectionist or isolationist if you are complaining about the aid we send there. Because if you are against that, then you must be even more hacked about aid sent to the Palestinians all these years (until Hamas won the election), as well as aid sent to other nations that don't much care for us. And we've sent aid to other countries that aren't particularly grateful either. So just how do you propose we deal with any country to which we wish to ally ourselves? Israel is hardly the least grateful to be sure. And it seems to me that other nations don't have the excuse of constant attacks by their neighbors, an excuse that is totally legitimate.

Marshall Art said...

Teresa,

"Exactly. This is the crux of the culture wars. The assertion that non-Christians have no right to speak..."

This is crap and nonsense. No one supports this in the least (except for your family). The crux of this "war" is that businesses feel some sense of pressure to be more generic in their celebration of the day out some misplaced concern for a few jerks who think they have some right to not be offended by the religious connotations of the day. As I suggested in a previous comment, such people only have the right to go pound sand up their asses.

For the rest of us, we have a right to be hacked that businesses have taken this position, and we have a right to be hacked at those sorry bastards that have provoked it. These sad sacks are pushing the fictitious separation of church and state nonsense out of a sense of selfishness and doing their best to suck joy out of the day for their sake. It is then understandable, if not justifiable, that some Christians are hacked enough to make a stink about it and then take it out at the mere mention of "Happy Holidays". You want to accuse someone? Accuse the weenies who started it all with this separation crap. They are the true source of this misery.

Mark said...

I started to leave a comment here but it grew too long, therefore, I am transferring my comment, due to it's length, over at my place in the form of a blogpost.

Teresa said...

Marshall Art,

So you blame Paine, Madison and Jefferson?

Hashfanatic just said that individuals have to say it, and he gave a long-winded retort that basically seems to say that people deserve to have someone get in their face if they don't say "Merry Christmas", and if someone tried to stop and assault, they deserve to get beaten.

Last I checked, I am not a friend or reletive of Hashfanatic.

Also, I noticed that your zeal for citations fails where he is condcerned. He basically gave a completely alternative run-down of the event I cited, and you never once asked him for links. Interesting.

hashfanatic said...

"You speak of their corruption and crimes."

and you're incapable of seeing any of them, and bound to deny all of them, but i'll throw something together later, after i've had several cups of coffee, and i can express myself in a manner you won't find inflammatory, lol

i'd say that, offhand, you can justify gush katif, lebanon, jonathan pollard, the federal reserve system, madoff, agriprocessors, sabra and shatilla, the uss liberty, and the continued existence of mark steyn, while simultaneously condemning mordechai vannunu, you're not going to be open to any of the information i provide on the subject anyway

because these are all manifestations of the three-hundred pound elephant in the living room, and why i equate zionism to fundamentalist muslim theology, in terms of clear and present threats to american security and societal integrity, the world over

"You make the charge, you must defend it with some kind of link or reference with more credibility than imaginings or anecdotal story-telling. Otherwise, don't waste my time...."

this sums up my "sorry opinion" on the subject far more succinctly than i ever could

and don't be such a grumpy old man, you have no horse in this race, whether you realize it or not, LOL!

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/12/30/israel-from-mensch-to-bully/

"I have no doubt that peace in the region will come only with the abdication of hostile intent by the Arabs of the region..."

i've already explained that "peace in the region" is no longer possible, particularly when the "peace" itself, is nothing but a lie

frankly, i don't even support such a contrived peace, but i'm firmly opposed to my tax dollars going to support this farce, as well as the bloodshed that supports it

"Should Israel once again make the first moves, should they once again enter into any agreement is not preceeded by the Palestinians first giving up their hatred for Israel, then Israel will again be attacked and have to defend herself and they will be back to square one..."

that's israel's problem, let american jews and the useful idiots who worship them support their brothers, without my nation's financial and tactical support

"You think Israel's response is over the top. I know it's insufficient if they haven't totally devasted their enemy and forced their compliance with terms of unconditional surrender..."

and that's precisely what i mean about neocons who blindly follow a discredited playbook and support the interests of a foreign, sovereign nation, over the interests of their own, and seek to justify it by declaring their protectorate infallible, to insulate themselves from charges of treason, while ingratiating themselves with a failed right-wing ideology and the cabal that supports it

hashfanatic said...

"And it seems to me that other nations don't have the excuse of constant attacks by their neighbors, an excuse that is totally legitimate."

that was never the issue

the issue was whether or not israel had ceded the high moral ground they'd occupied since the shelling of sderot had commenced, by deliberately targeting civilian neighborhoods when it was totally unnecessary to meet their strategic objectives, which is what some of us are questioning

if you cannot accept israeli, and by extension, jewish guilt in this, and in fact, believe israel is justifying in doing ANYTHING they want to their warsaw ghetto, how can you claim to be objective about the entire question?

hashfanatic said...

"Hashfanatic just said that individuals have to say it..."

no, i didn't, teresa, i am simply saying, don't complain about wackadoodles on the right carrying on about a "war on christmas", when there IS a war on religious freedom in general, and it's patently obvious that they are correct to point it out

"Also, I noticed that your zeal for citations fails where he is condcerned. He basically gave a completely alternative run-down of the event I cited, and you never once asked him for links. Interesting...."

teresa, i LIVE here, and am obviously familiar with the totally irrelevant story you posted, it's not my problem that you never anticipated that, and thought you could get away with posting one-tenth of what actually happened in this instance

Teresa said...

I might add that if there is nothing anti-semitic about "The Jews killed Christ", then that takes away a large part of the basis for calling "Mein Kamph" and anti-semitic document.

It also touches on Martin Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies", which forms most of the rest of the basis for Hitler's writings and actions.

But it is funny, because the last time I read my Bible, they didn't have any descriptions of Jews being the final authority that made the decision to kill him, I don't recall the scourging being administered by Jews, nor they Jews marching him at spear-point up to the cross, pounding in the nails, checking to make sure he was dead, etc.

In fact, it seems to me that the person most responsible for Jesus' death was Jesus.

I mean, he planned it out before he was even born, made a series of concious decisions to follow the plan during the course of his life, and didn't use his fancy God power to save himself from the cross.

Doesn't seem right for the punishment to be heaped on the Jews for that. Although Martin Luther clearly disagreed, and the fact that he used that simple sentiment to lay out a plan for genocide that was later followed just isn't important, because he was a Christian, and just saying a fact "every Christian knew".

got it.

hashfanatic said...

"You're obviously a protectionist or isolationist if you are complaining about the aid we send there..."

ABSOLUTELY, they are cornerstones of true conservatism, american conservatism, as opposed to the nation-building malarkey and globalist free-trade myths the interlopers brought in, and subsequently destroyed our nation and distinct society

and, clearly, you are not done with us yet, i accept that

Teresa said...

Hashfanatic,

So, if you live there, and if the story was so wrong, and if you were an eye witness, you could certainly come up with some story or report that corroborated your observation of what happened...

You introduce facts that had to come from somewhere...so where did they come from? I'd like to know?

You say that the man who was beaten escalated the encounter...but you don't say what specific action escalated it, don't provide a source other than that you seem to be an eye-witness. Normally that would be enough for me, but since it seems to contradict the story of other eye-witnesses, I'd like to have a little information.

Also, you say that the man who tried to help was illegal. It would be helpful if you could tell how you know that, and also if you could explain why it is a bad thing that an illegal alien decided to try to aid a citizen in distress. An argument could be made that they are coming here and taking away all of our assault-stopping opportunities from our citizens, but clearly, he was just stopping an assault that no citizens wanted to stop, so I don't understand what the harm is.

hashfanatic said...

You say that the man who was beaten escalated the encounter...but you don't say what specific action escalated it, don't provide a source other than that you seem to be an eye-witness..."

teresa, the article itself clearly stated that adler escalated the conflict...the "christkiller" statement was made in response to the "hannukah" silliness, and that's exactly where it should have all been dropped, but adler allowed his mouth to override his ass without realizing he was out of his element, hence, he got clocked, end of story

"It would be helpful if you could tell how you know that, and also if you could explain why it is a bad thing that an illegal alien decided to try to aid a citizen in distress...."

it came out later, on local tv news reports, when adler continued to hype his story, that the bangladeshi kid was here on an expired student visa...in fact, a case was made for an extension of it, based on his alleged heroism

in fact, iirc, two of the russian chicks adler was squiring around that night decided to get in on the act, and THEY suddenly and mercifully disappeared from the public eye, when their immigration status was called into question, by a curious public, and they suddenly disappeared from view, LOL!

and it is most definitely a wonderful thing for ANYONE to help another out "in distress", in fact, there was a time when that was the norm and not the exception in this nation

however, what part of the word "illegal" do you not understand?

i don't care if he saved the big three, cured cancer, and singlehandledly spearheaded a successful campaign to restore pringles salt and vinegar potato chips to their rightful place on my supermarket's shelves

if he is here illegally, he is here illegally, and that would indicate to me, that it is time for him to go, and it really IS that simple

hashfanatic said...

"In fact, it seems to me that the person most responsible for Jesus' death was Jesus..."

teresa, statements like this are why i don't get into apologetics and theological/denominational discussions online, outside of my own circles

the point remains, we continue to have freedom of speech in this country, and we continue to have freedom of religion in this country, so, regardless of what the (drunken) guy said, adler was in the wrong for escalating the situation and turning it into a full-blown beef, which he lost

hashfanatic said...

"You are welcome in this great nation, to your opinion. If you wish to say Merry Christmas, knock yerself out. I and everyone else is welcome to my/our opinions. If we wish to say, Happy Holidays, we shall..."

dan? was any of this ever in question?

do you seriously envision me stalking shopping malls, accosting hapless, politically correct department store cashiers, brandishing a gaultier jumper in one hand and a louisville slugger in another?

my assessment of the failure of our minds to meet on this, dan, is that you live in one, particularly distinct and separate environment, and i live in another particularly distinct and separate environment, and our experiences in life so vastly differ from one another, that it is impossible for us to relate to one another's concerns

so i'll spare us further requests for clarification and accept your queries for what they are, rather than what i would have them represent, to the world at large

hashfanatic said...

teresa?

your trotting out of that ridiculous story reminded me of something!

now...adler? NOT "antisemitism"...

want a REAL example of an REAL antisemitic attack, only a few stations down?

read, and watch

http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=11165

THAT is an example of an antisemitic attack, not a drunken, whose-is-bigger throwdown between foolish punks who ought to have known better, and STILL felt the need to exploit their victimhood, for maximum effect

Teresa said...

Hashfanatic,

So, when Christians yell about Jews being Christ killers and beat them up, it's NOT anti-sematism, but when Muslims yell Allah Akbar and beat up Jews it is?

Got it.

Teresa said...

Hashfanatic,

On your urging, I went looking for mor information about the story. I found a site that has pictures of the brave and innocent Christmas Warriors who were so provoked by the terrible behavior you describe from the Jews.

They are from the prime suspect's girlfriend's Facebook page.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12122007/news/regionalnews/12122007_thugs/photo01.htm

And the guy apparently plead guilty to a hate crime against a black guy in 2005...
...sounds to me like the kind of person that you could "escalate" a situation with by blinking.

hashfanatic said...

"I found a site that has pictures of the brave and innocent Christmas Warriors who were so provoked by the terrible behavior you describe from the Jews...."

LOL, i never painted him as a choirboy, dear!

hence, my use of the term "punk" in my description?

nonetheless, punks abound in all places where human beings congregate, it does not change the fact that adler got what he deserved, for goading the drunken punk into throwing down on him

that's life in the big city, for better or for worse, "antisemitism" never entered into the equation

so, teresa, you get a big fat FAIL on this one, but, we're cool, try again if you like! :)

Marshall Art said...

Teresa & Hash,

Take your irrelevant discussion to one of YOUR blogs. I'm not interested, which is why I never asked for Hash to support his comments regarding it. I never looked at the story since it has nothing to do with the topic of the post.

In fact, Hash's unsupported anti-Israeli attacks don't either, but at least the topic dealt with something in the Middle East.

Marshall Art said...

Hash,

You keep insisting that the Israelis are intently bombing indiscriminately, when this is false and the targets have been Hamas targets. This is the type of statement that requires support. You seem to think that developing ties with other nations equates to forsaking our own sovereignty or sense of priorities regarding allegiances. This is stupid and baseless. Of course my allegiance is to my country first, but that does not mean that I would forsake our friends. And amongst our friends and alliances, none are as put upon by their neighbors as is Israel. They still retain the moral highground no matter how punishing their response to impotent Hamas attacks. They retain it not due to the success of the attacks against them, but by the consistency and ongoing nature of the attacks as well as by the hatred behind it. Like a child who refuses to listen, where the response to the child's continued offense escalates to yelling, spanking, grounding, etc., Hamas and their supporters are due for far greater punishment than Israel has yet provided.

And by the way, there is no such thing as a "failed conservative ideology". There has only been a failure to stick to the ideology. The conservative philosophy works as history repeatedly shows.

Marshall Art said...

One more thing. I don't "refuse" to see anything regarding alleged Israeli offenses. I simply haven't been shown any, either by you or by the mainstream press which has always perpetrated the false notion that Israel is just as responsible for the strife in that region.

hashfanatic said...

"In fact, Hash's unsupported anti-Israeli attacks don't either, but at least the topic dealt with something in the Middle East."

uh, i provided you a link, to a post which encapsulated my opinion on this matter

it is you who failed to respond to the points it made

teresa said...

No problem, marshall.

I am sorry. It started out at least related to war and Christmas...but no argument, it got off-topic pretty quickly.

hashfanatic said...

"You keep insisting that the Israelis are intently bombing indiscriminately, when this is false and the targets have been Hamas targets. This is the type of statement that requires support."

and i have, indeed four, versus four hundred casualties, would be enough for most to question your erroneous premise

you can only redirect manufactured outrage to the "israel has a right to defend itself" canard, which no one ever questioned

"You seem to think that developing ties with other nations equates to forsaking our own sovereignty or sense of priorities regarding allegiances..."

no, unconditionally accepting and supporting crimes by rogue nations that YOU deem "allies" out of partisan allegiance is complicity in murder, it has nothing to do with "allegiances"

it is a matter of preserving the lives of another family's children, while forsaking the lives of your own, using the very moral equivalence you routinely decry in other matters, as a justification

"Of course my allegiance is to my country first, but that does not mean that I would forsake our friends. And amongst our friends and alliances, none are as put upon by their neighbors as is Israel. They still retain the moral highground no matter how punishing their response to impotent Hamas attacks. They retain it not due to the success of the attacks against them, but by the consistency and ongoing nature of the attacks as well as by the hatred behind it. Like a child who refuses to listen, where the response to the child's continued offense escalates to yelling, spanking, grounding, etc., Hamas and their supporters are due for far greater punishment than Israel has yet provided..."

and i use your own words, again, as reinforcement that israel and the jewish people ALWAYS come first, above american interests, to the absolute exclusion of american interests, because your support of israel is absolute, and unwavering

let us know how that ultimately works out for you

"One more thing. I don't "refuse" to see anything regarding alleged Israeli offenses..."

of COURSE you do, marshall, this is the very basis of our disagreements on this matter, LOL!

this is nothing new, if i post links detailing mistakes or crimes committed by israelis in the middle east, israelis in america, or even american jews, you just scoff at it as "lefty lib propaganda", and, when i counter with right-wing sources, you deny their existence altogether, LOL!

we've been down this road before

"And by the way, there is no such thing as a "failed conservative ideology". There has only been a failure to stick to the ideology. The conservative philosophy works as history repeatedly shows...."

neoconservatism as a force in american politics is dead and buried, as evidenced by the 2008 election, when americans voted in an empty suit, a foreigner with marxist inclinations, simply because they couldn't bear bush, couldn't stand one more minute of bush, and neoconservative policies had utterly failed in every facet that americans felt government should be involved in

conservatism was indeed hijacked by the neoconservative movement, its policies were tried on for size and roundly rejected, to potentially disasterous results, and there is really nowhere that conservatism can go, as long as american conservatism and its institutional framework does not purge itself of undesirable neoconservative elements, and the vestiges of faulty policies and the corrupt culture the neocons brought in

in short, a radical rethinking, and fundamental shift of values, is required from within, then and only then can the emerging radical left wing and the similarly failed ideals of liberalism can crash and burn

continue as you have, and you'll get exactly what you got last year

teresa said...

I'd take it to hashfanatic's blog, but i can't as he doesn't give a url.

You are welcomed to mine, hash.

Jim said...

an empty suit, a foreigner with marxist inclinations

totally unsupported bullbleep. where do you come up with this stuff?

hashfanatic said...

teresa, i don't have one, yet

jim, that's my opinion, you are free to agree or disagree! no skin off my back!

Marshall Art said...

Teresa,

"I am sorry. It started out at least related to war and Christmas...but no argument, it got off-topic pretty quickly."

No sweat. We're cool.

Marshall Art said...

Hash,

Pardon me if I didn't review your link fast enough to suit you. I have now, however, and here's my response:

I've heard of Johnson and give him props. He's a man who's opinion should be respected. That being said, it is only an opinion, and some it based on a guy who's opinion is suspect, that being Anthony Zinni.

You may be aware of the fact that there are those who have always sided with the Palestinians, and in this I'm recalling Lynn Redgrave back in the 70's, I believe (or is it Vanessa? I can never keep them straight). Zinni could be one of those. That's fine. Anyone is free to believe what they want about a country or people. That may be true to some extent with Johnson as well. I would not debate Israel's level of arrogance, nor certainly anyone's perception of it, though I would debate the perspective of a BBC report on just about anything. Johnson recommends a viewing of that suspect reporting service.

But we have seen examples of fabricated and over-exaggerated reports by Arabs/Muslims from incidents, such as the most recent Israeli/Hezb'allah skirmish to which you and Johnson has referred. They routinely go out of their way as being far more victimized than they have a right to.

But like yourself, Johnson makes the mistake of comparing the incompetence and impotence of the Hamas attacks to the response by the Israelis. Had it been a one-time attack, your alarm at the Israeli response would elicit no debate from me. But these things have been ongoing since before Gaza was turned over and continued through the recent ignored cease-fire.

I say once again that the level of civilian casualties is soley the fault of the Palestinians themselves, for allowing, nay, for purposely placing Hamas targets within their populated areas. All outrage should be directed there, not at Israel, who would not be bombing without provocation. And I don't know what Johnson thinks of Israeli intel, but I don't know that I've ever heard anyone disparage it. Thus, they are likely aware of what building houses Hamas a-holes and which doesn't, and should civilians die despite the targeting of these sites, it is because of the purposeful proximity to them. Again, blame Hamas. It is not debatable that attacks on Israel are not made with any concern for civilian centers, as civilian targets are routine. Thus, any moral equivalency is ludicrous.

Further, I take exception to any charge that anyone is putting Israel's interests above our own, specifically my own. This is not the case. To defend the actions of Israel does NOT in anyway support the allegation. It is only defense for their actions, period. The charge is stupid and baseless, particularly without evidence.

As far as evidence, you duck the effort to provide any by claiming I'd dismiss it out of hand. I've never done so ever on any topic. Crappy evidence is crappy evidence. You may be confusing fact with opinion, a possibility which your Johnson piece seems to support. Be that as it may, I'm always open to whatever you might provide, but I will render an opinion of it one way or the other. If you don't like the opinion, that's too bad.

Finally, this whole "neoconservatism" label bores me to tears. There is only conservatism and the "neocon" label was applies to demonize a group of conservatives who dared to put together on paper a plan for where they felt the country should go. The merits of that plan has rarely, if ever been addressed directly and the opponents of them have been from some of the goofiest of liberal buffoons. Don't group yourself among them. You also make the mistake of believing the last election was evidence of rejecting anything but sanity and clear thinking. I will grant that the right has a real problem, but it isn't with their philosophies. It is with their adherence to those philosophies, and an incomprehensible inability to articulate those philosophies in a manner understandable to more people.

Mark said...

Art, the term, "neocon" means "new Conservative" and it appears it describes much of Hashfanatic's recent rebirth as a result of what Hash calls, "the pez dispenser's" election.

Give him a break. As all new converts, he has to learn to crawl before he can walk. :D

hashfanatic said...

"You may be aware of the fact that there are those who have always sided with the Palestinians, and in this I'm recalling Lynn Redgrave back in the 70's, I believe (or is it Vanessa? I can never keep them straight). Zinni could be one of those..."

it's vanessa, and, incidentally, your audacity in drawing comparisons between redgrave and a retired four-star general of MY military, LOL, is PRECISELY what i'm driving at, when i point out ideologically based allegiances to israel overriding the allegiance of neoconservatives to america!

you can speak of such a notion without a trace of irony, LOL!

"But like yourself, Johnson makes the mistake of comparing the incompetence and impotence of the Hamas attacks to the response by the Israelis. Had it been a one-time attack, your alarm at the Israeli response would elicit no debate from me. But these things have been ongoing since before Gaza was turned over and continued through the recent ignored cease-fire..."

absolutely, and, again, that is why he (and i) take pains to reiterate that hamas is wholly responsible for instigating this latest crisis

"But like yourself, Johnson makes the mistake of comparing the incompetence and impotence of the Hamas attacks to the response by the Israelis..."

incorrect, i differ with johnson in that, i believe the corrupt and incompetent olmert regime, that you seem to support, was responsible for allowing the attacks on sderot to continue unaddressed for so long, indeed, this intransigence gives credence to the theory that israel used gaza to launch a disproportionate military action, knowing the outrage would spread and engulf the entire middle east

but that's not the point i'm trying to drive at, my point is, israel is ostensibly targeting hamas alone, yet trapped palestinians are being slaughtered, not just by the indiscriminate saturation bombing, but the blockage, the fouled water, the blackout, none of which the "bbc" or any other media outlet is capable of concocting, nor do the israelis themselves, ONLY american neoconservatives do, just as american jew haters perpetually concoct israeli offenses

i'm aware of this fraudulent dichotomy, it causes me to place every morsel of reporting under the same microscope

"It is only defense for their actions, period. The charge is stupid and baseless, particularly without evidence..."

"As far as evidence, you duck the effort to provide any by claiming I'd dismiss it out of hand. I've never done so ever on any topic..."

of COURSE you do, and have, because i've given you the shortest of litanies on repeated instances in which the state of israel has most definitely NOT been an ally, and you wouldn't address a single one, and i don't blame you for it

"I say once again that the level of civilian casualties is soley the fault of the Palestinians themselves, for allowing, nay, for purposely placing Hamas targets within their populated areas..."

marshall?

gaza is not the great plains of the midwest, it is essentially israel's redux of the warsaw ghetto they were once herded into themselves, crowded, filthy, with no essential services

it's not as though there are verdant play zones set up for terrorist organizations to frolic in, and, as far as equivalence is concerned, were not jewish, as well as muslim, puerto rican terror organizations, etc., located within the midst of american population centers during the 1970s? do you wish for me to cite them, chapter and verse?

yet, you can easily speak for citizens of other nations and justify the actions of their powers, and claim, well, my neighbor is lobbing coconuts over my fence, let me solve this, by slitting the throat of the child across the street

and i believe i've earned credit for even addressing the issue head on, as opposed to other token liberal commenters who hit the dirt, and hide the table in your presence, the moment the word "israel" is mentioned

again, if all military and financial aid to israel, palestine, the gulf nations, etc., if all foreign aid to all nations are reevaluated and adjusted accordingly, you and your new american century will certainly have no beef with me, at that point, you're free to support israel unconditionally with own your charitable donations, to your heart's content, and i am once again free to know the fruits of my labors are not unwillingly contributing to my children's eventual destruction

"If you don't like the opinion, that's too bad..."

very hostile, unwarranted tone

to which i respond...

"Finally, this whole "neoconservatism" label bores me to tears...."

ah, but you are a good soldier, marshall, if you wear the uniform, you should not be ashamed to own up to its label

"It is with their adherence to those philosophies, and an incomprehensible inability to articulate those philosophies in a manner understandable to more people..."

marshall, any philosophy that cannot clearly articulate itself to a nation it rules over for twenty-eight years, has no reason for existence, much less credence

i assert, americans always "got" it, they simply understood the inadequacies of a tired, failed neocon agenda in a post-9/11 america, and rejected it soundly, regrettably by swinging to an equally distasteful and empty extreme

so, we wait, and see, i give it all up to a higher authority to sort out anyway, my life does not belong to me

hashfanatic said...

"....recent rebirth...."

eeeekk...is that what you think, mark??

no, i'm afraid i'd make a poor wingnut, LOL!!

i have very traditional opinions on many issues that some consider "conservative", but others that would most likely cause you to shake your head sadly

however, you get points for discerning that it was "that one", and particularly his wild-eyed followers, that caused me to drop my partisan affiliation

at this point, i'm just waiting, watching, searching

Marshall Art said...

Hash,

Is your allegiance to a four-star general greater than your allegiance to the nation? I don't view Zinni with the same respect as a Petraeus or Schwartzkopf. Some military brass are political animals more than military ones. Zinni is amongst the former, in my opinion. In addition, rank does not eliminate a very human propensity to pick sides due to skewed perspectives. It's no great shakes to find a general to match one's own perspectives. It IS a stretch to suggest that my dismissal of Zinni means my allegiance is in question.

I don't support a regime, I support a nation, an ally, which BTW does not mean total agreement on every issue, a mistaken notion your comments suggest. I don't find Olmert to be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree and I found his response to the Lebanon situation to have been lame. However, his response to the constant attacks by Hamas from Gaza could have been result of the constant calls for restraint imposed upon Israel by the world community, including our own government. You can't have it both ways. At the same time, I doubt there are any fears of Muslim outrage in the decisions by the Israelis since a fart with the wind blowing in the wrong direction will spark such outrage from the radicals. Who cares over what a-holes are outraged? With them, the Israelis are damned if they do and damned if they don't. YOU wouldn't waste time with such in your personal life.

The Palestinian civilian is NOT trapped. They could be demanding that their leaders find peaceful solutions only and cease the rocket attacks. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that few, if any, know the real story of their own situation. They never see the bulk of aid sent to them by other nations. They are kept in misery by the focus of their leaders on Israel. Indeed if anyone's putting aside concern for their own, it is the Palestinian leadership, who could have raised up the living standards of their own people years ago. But they're too busy pretending Israel is the bad guy. So, when Pallie civilians are "slaughtered" during DISCRIMINATING targeting of Hamas locations, the question is really a matter of should Israel tolerate an occasional death of their own from the incompetent and impotent rocket attacks rather than risk unfortunate Palestinain civilian deaths by responding with the only message their Hamas leaders will ever understand? I think not. That they haven't flattened Gaza completely, which they likely have the power to do, should demonstrate your charge of "indiscriminate bombing" is ludicrous. As to your other charges, concerning blockages, blackout, fouling water, etc. is nothing I've ever heard from any credible source including the MSM. Where are you getting this stuff? If any of it has any truth to it, there is likely a less malevolent cause or reason behind it, I'm sure. Keep in mind that this "ghetto" is what was demanded by your woeful Palestinians. Israelis living there had to be forcefully removed, so with that in mind, what changed? Simply put, the inflow of Israeli-hating Palestinians who saw the concession as a chance to launch attacks from a more strategically beneficial location. Why wasn't any of those billions in aid not spent on the essential services they lack? It is because their desire to rid their world of Jews takes precedence over the welfare of their own people. They created their own ghetto. They weren't herded into one. And within that ghetto, Hamas set up their staging operations.

As to your suggestion regarding Puerto Rican groups and the like, which of them were lobbing explosives into the surrounding communities? I think the answer is: none.

"... well, my neighbor is lobbing coconuts over my fence, let me solve this, by slitting the throat of the child across the street."

This is stupid and not even close to describing the dynamic of the situation. It suggests the Israelis are targeting civilians. They are not. The Pallies are.

"and i believe i've earned credit for even addressing the issue head on..."

Of course. Too bad you're so off base on the issue.

"very hostile, unwarranted tone"

Not so. It's a mere statement of fact.

You can label me "neo" anything if you like. I don't much care about that. There's nothing for me to be ashamed of over standing by friends. Sometimes, standing by friends costs one more than one would like ordinarily like to spend. But that's what it means to be a true friend. Do you not sacrifice nothing of yourself for any friends you might have? If you've never felt any level pain by doing so, I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of friendship. And I'd hazard a guess that if any harm comes to a loved one out of friendship to a nation like Israel, it is likely due to two things: the scumbags messing with Israel, and NOT ENOUGH support from her allies.

"i assert, americans always "got" it, they simply understood the inadequacies of a tired, failed neocon agenda in a post-9/11 america, and rejected it soundly, regrettably by swinging to an equally distasteful and empty extreme"

This is laughably false. Libs never got if or they wouldn't be libs. In fact, most never take the time to learn the difference and instead act on only the most superficial, self-centered aspects of liberal policy. And they have no better understanding of who Obama is than they do of conservatism. The rest of the libs don't care what conservatism is, they just want the power for power's sake. Our lives might not belong to us, but we are charged with running them properly. Conservatism is a great step in the right direction.

Marshall Art said...

Hash,

Here's another perspective for you. It's the bottom line.

Marty said...

"Marty's idiot former pastor..."

Just because you disagree with the post he linked to doesn't make him an idiot Marshall.

You are free to disagree.

I don't know much, if anything, about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. So I'm not going to pretend to.

I met a Christian Palestinian once at a friend's house. He and his family were driven off their land during that 6 day war back in the 60s. His family had lived on that patch of land for hundreds of years. Some of his family members where killed. He was deaf and signed ASL really fast. Signed English is a snap, but that ASL...whew! It was difficult for me to understand everthing he said. He is still around. I saw him last year at my friend's funeral. I should look him up. I would really like to know more about what happened to him and his family and how they ended up in the U.S.

Marty said...

Getting back on topic I offer this:

The Surge: Too Vague to Fail

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

You have it backwards. Your former pastor's not an idiot because I disagree with him, I disagree because he's an idiot. This is much the same as his little opinion piece. Had he not rendered an idiotic opinion, I might not have disagreed. He posits the notion that Israel drew first blood and the rest of us are only focussing on Hamas' repsonse. This is totally backwards.

Furthermore, I find you last link to be equally worthless as it contradicts other opinions I find more highly plausible. His opinion of Petraeus' actions is lacking in full detail and a better, more detailed analysis is found in Yon's book. He also speaks of the same Mosul situation with far more plausibility, acknowleging the problems there with a far more reasonable explanation. This explanation is supported by the success of the surge as the added troops provided the missing pieces in Petraeus' plan, a plan he himself admitted was lacking due to troop strength to seal the deal.

In addition, this guy in your link also mentions Petraeus "bribing" Sunnis but fails to mention that they were accepting dough from the enemy beforehand. All Petraeus did was recognize that money drove those particular people, so he offered them more. That, together with their own assessment that AQI was killing too many Iraqis changed their attitudes.

Marty said...

"You have it backwards."

I'm not so sure about that. This conflict dates back before the recent Hamas attack. I'll do some research.

"In addition, this guy in your link also mentions Petraeus "bribing" Sunnis but fails to mention that they were accepting dough from the enemy beforehand."

I think that is pretty much a given. Why mention it? Even back in 2003/04 when my son was there on his first tour Iraqis were being paid by the enemy to set out those IEDs, then the U.S. would pay the Iraqis to show them where the bombs were. Nothing new here Marshall.

The point is what happens when the money runs dry from the U.S.

Marshall Art said...

The conflict goes back at least to the time when Israeli statehood was first installed under UN supervision. When that happened, five Arab nations attacked Israel simultaneously. But it likely goes back even further, if fact, back to Mohammed himself. When the Islamic aspect is considered, it surely does, as Jews became targets within Islam's first years of existence.

As to whether or not bribes by the enemy is a given, it would seem that point should always be mentioned when speaking of bribes at all, lest some get the wrong idea. It certainly gave me pause until I researched more deeply. As to what happens when OUR money runs out, I would suspect that the Iraqi government might then take over, or, if things are done effectively, there will be no enemy money with which to bribe them. Keep in mind also that the bribed are not keen on the tactics of the enemy as they cost Iraqi lives as well. Our efforts defend the common Iraqi, and they now are seeing the difference.

Marty said...

"The conflict goes back at least to the time when Israeli statehood was first installed under UN supervision"

In researching I found This article on reasons for the current conflict.

Marshall Art said...

Sorry, Marty,

I'm not buying this claptrap for a minute. It once again suggests that things were peachy until Israel got cocky. I reject this as another piece jumping in the middle of the story. Hamas has always had as part of its basic ideology the elimination of Israel, period. They have never shown anything anyone could consider a sincere move toward peace, and in fact, peace with Israel is antithetical to their basic nature and Islamic beliefs. The suffering of the Palestinian people is a direct result of Palestinian action. Whatever Israel has done in terms of caging them in is a direct result of attacks upon them. Billions in aid has been sent to Palestine for many decades, enough to build up their communities even without statehood. They are were they chose to be. The onus is upon the Palestinians to prove they want peace by complete and utter rejection of Hamas and the tactics they employ.

Tor Hershman said...

"...been significant and tangible progress in Iraq," ain't that about the same thingy the U. S. of A. said a few years after ole Saddam took over?

Marshall Art said...

Welcome Tor,

And yes, it's possible to have been the same thingy said back then. Two points: It's even more evident now that then, and it's lost in the constant stories of misery championed by the left.

The difference of course is that when the right speaks of the progress, they do so without denying the challenges still at hand. The left, however, refuses to acknowledge any progress for fear that Bush might be held in better regard by more people. It's dishonest to speak of one without any mention of the other. But when there's political points to be made, which is all that matters to the left, such tactics are employed, uh, liberally.

BTW, Tor. If you're the funniest iconoclast ever, how will I know when you're being serious or just trying to be a stitch? In either case, you're welcome to post comments at any time.

Marshall Art said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marty said...

"The suffering of the Palestinian people is a direct result of Palestinian action."

So, does that mean that you're ok with this Marshall?

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

What in any of my comments makes you think I'm "OK" with any of it? My point is that any blame for the suffering of this people is at their own feet for both supporting Hamas and for supporting the notion that Israel is worthy only of annihilation, which is a pervasive attitude whether Israel defends herself or not.

So NO!, I say emphatically, NO I am NOT "OK" with it. Here's a good way to stop it: surrender! Hamas should disarm and disband as a military unit (and by the way, despite the words of the doctor in that video, amongst the first 300 or so deaths, even the Pallies were saying most were military---in addition, how savvy is he in knowing if the targets of which he spoke were military or not? Hamas purposely hides amongst the people of Palestine, often with the blessings of Pallie civilians who share the Islamic ideology upon which Hamas is based. In other words, they look upon these miseries as propoganda to use against Israel and their desire to trash Israel is more important than the lives of their own people). After Hamas disbands, the Palestinians need to reject the attitude that says Jews are dogs and pigs unworthy of life and stop teaching this to their kids. At the very least, Hamas should love their own people enough to separate themselves from civilian population if they intend to make war, but they are too cowardly for that.

It's really a simple thing. When the Palestinians stop hating Jews, their misery, at least that which results from Israeli response to their actions, ends.

Also, I could point you to a number of videos myself that would demonstrate the truthfulness of my position. "Jihad Watch" for example has a couple that should serve as eye openers and give you a sense of what is really going on there, as well as what is at stake for the world. Gaza is really nothing more than another example of that which you will learn by viewing these other vids.

Marty said...

Ok...I'll take a look. Thanks for the info.