tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post4256178857006766297..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: NO THIS IS NOT A SCENE FROM THE EXODUS IN SOME MOVIE: IT IS REAL AND IT IS THE EXODUS OF CHRISTIANS FROM IRAQ UNDER THE REAL THREAT TORTURE AND DEATH FROM ISALMIC TERRORISTSFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-15411197132452336642014-08-10T18:58:51.930-04:002014-08-10T18:58:51.930-04:00How about, "You are not a patriot if…you vote...How about, "You are not a patriot if…you voted for Obama." LOL!Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-31986866799182084952014-08-10T00:20:55.906-04:002014-08-10T00:20:55.906-04:00George:
I did not know about the Frontline video ...George:<br /><br />I did not know about the Frontline video and have watched it this evening. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Here is a link:<br /><br />http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/<br /><br />Watch it and weep! The fatal vice for the ancient Greeks was hubris. We should study the ancient Greeks more and learn from history (theirs and ours).<br /><br />I agree that the video seems quite balanced. This is what I take away from it: The Bush boys were a joke. They did not have the first clue and committed mistake after mistake. The first thing they got right was the Surge. This now raises the question: If the Obama administration had been more engaged and had tried to exert more political and diplomatic influence over Maliki after troops left, would it have made a difference? Some of those interviewed suggest that the disengagement was a serious mistake. It is my sense from reading between the lines of the following Frontline interview with General Petraeus that, in his view, it would have made little difference. But I could be wrong in how I am reading him.<br /><br />http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/david-petraeus-isiss-rise-in-iraq-isnt-a-surprise/<br /><br />My bottom line: If we had never invaded, Iraq would not be in the mess it is now; and I weigh that certainty (in my mind) against the possibility that it could perhaps have come right in the end if we had stayed more involved. So, I assign 80-90% blame for all this on the Bush administration and about 10-20% on the Obama administration.<br /><br />But that’s just Iraq. The destabilization of the entire region is, in my view, still clearly to be laid at Bush’s door. The documentary doesn’t mention this dimension at all, which is fine given the scope of the piece. More troubling is that it mentions nothing about the Alliance, in particular the British contribution to the effort (remember Tony Blair and all those British troops anyone?). But that is just typical of the American view of these things and I am used to it by now (see comment on hubris above). <br /><br />As for the votes, well, no surprises there – couple the self-interest of politicians with the usual chilling and totally illegitimate conversation stopper of: “You are not a patriot if you __________” [complete blank as required, as in e.g., “oppose this war”] and you have your explanation in my view. Sorry to be so cynical.<br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-91048874392125571422014-08-09T19:27:01.145-04:002014-08-09T19:27:01.145-04:00Pater Ignotus and Anonymous2:
"I am sure many...Pater Ignotus and Anonymous2:<br />"I am sure many will recommend re-invading Iraq and thus repeating the same mistakes." <br /><br />Let' s hope and pray that doesn't happen. There will be many things written about what Mr Bush did, didn't do, and could have done. John Kerry, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all voted to authorize the action which they all I would think regret doing. I try to focus on whoever is the current occupant of the White House.<br />There was a recent Frontline show on a documentary by Michael Kirk "Losing Iraq" which I missed but someone who saw it thought it was a balanced approach to what happened. Nouri al-Maliki lost access to the ear of the President when Mr Obama assumed office. The administration essentially back-burnered Iraq, while Maliki took ill-advised sectarian actions that hastened the rise of the Islamic extremists, known as ISIS. Mr. Obama did not take on the challenge of Iraq as he should have.<br />In Frontline’s press release, Kirk labeled Iraq “the tragic accumulation of many mistakes,” and as the documentary makes clear, no one of them can be blamed for what has transpired.Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-63807599213063288452014-08-09T18:48:52.708-04:002014-08-09T18:48:52.708-04:00Let's get Bibi Netanyahu to say he was born in...Let's get Bibi Netanyahu to say he was born in Hawaii, then get somebody to fake a birth certificate for him and run him for President. Hey, it has been done before…LOL!Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-62020592930822107672014-08-09T18:45:29.299-04:002014-08-09T18:45:29.299-04:00There is only one real solution to Iran and Iraq a...There is only one real solution to Iran and Iraq and Hamas, but you can't go nuclear over there without hurting Israel. I suppose they could be conventionally bombed out of existence, but that would take a long time and be very expensive.<br />Probably the best option is to become totally energy independent after Nobama leaves the White Hut, then sever all ties with them and just allow them to slaughter each other. Maybe they could film it from satellite and show it on Wide World of Sports...Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-27470921983567116342014-08-09T17:32:30.248-04:002014-08-09T17:32:30.248-04:00Gene:
This is ridiculous. Just please read the w...Gene: <br /><br />This is ridiculous. Just please read the wretched Wikipedia article and then we can talk. You can tell us all why it is so wrong since you have read so many books about the War.<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-38643842433842425532014-08-09T16:57:15.894-04:002014-08-09T16:57:15.894-04:00P.S. Also Smart is seeking a political solution in...P.S. Also Smart is seeking a political solution in Iraq that will reach out to disaffected Sunnis and thus undercut their support for ISIS.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-59222867887785101622014-08-09T16:52:05.030-04:002014-08-09T16:52:05.030-04:00Father Mark:
What is needed, what has always been...Father Mark:<br /><br />What is needed, what has always been needed, is clear thinking and practical wisdom, but it is something that has been sorely lacking in American foreign policy regarding the Middle East and in some other places in the Islamic world for many years now, and especially since 9/11. The reason some of us are so mad about Bush’s invasion of Iraq is that it led directly to the current terrible mess, in Iraq and elsewhere. And one can’t just absolve Bush and his merry Men and Maid Condi and say it is time to move on and deal with the current situation for this reason – the same neo-con buffoons who got us in the mess in the first place are now advising the same sorts of actions that created the mess. THAT is why it is so important to keep reminding people about Bush – so we don’t make the same stupid mistakes as before. And they want us to believe that all would have been well if only Obama had left some American troops there. Pleeeese. How naïve can one be!<br /><br />More broadly, all this is the result of “liberal” Western meddling in things we just do not understand. I could go back to the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of World War I and the treachery of the British (and the French) towards the Arabs as they divided up the Middle East between them, but I will stay with just recent history since 9/11. The neocons were just as “liberal” in this respect as Obama, more so in fact. As I said before, there were sound “conservative” reasons for not invading Iraq, including the strong opposition of Pope St. John Paul II. Obama may know more than Bush but he too has engaged in the same misguided interventionism, either through choice or because of the terrible legacy he was left (i.e., he may have had no choice). He has been more restrained than Bush (or than a Romney would have been), thank goodness, but U.S. actions under Obama have also contributed to the destabilization of the old older, under which, and this is the point here, Christians were much better off than after “liberation” and “regime change.” When I saw the euphoria over the Arab Spring, including at first also among the Bush neocons, I said again: How naïve can one be!<br /><br />Here is an even-handed account. You will like the criticism of Obama in the second part but may dislike the criticism of Bush in the first part:<br /><br />http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/10970-christian-massacres-a-result-of-us-foreign-policy<br /><br />And by the way, semantically ISIS came into being on Obama’s watch. But in reality ISIS predates Obama by years, as the Islamic State of Iraq. Like so much else in this snakes nest, it is a Bush creation, not an Obama creation:<br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10892898/Iraq-crisis-Q-and-A-Who-or-what-is-ISIS-Is-it-part-of-al-Qaeda.html<br /><br />I am sure many will recommend re-invading Iraq and thus repeating the same mistakes. In the words of the late Pete Seeger: “When will they ever learn.” It is time to play it smart not stupid. Supporting the Kurds and keeping boots off the ground is smart.<br /> <br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-85021335620521388262014-08-09T15:32:13.861-04:002014-08-09T15:32:13.861-04:00The short take on Obama's view:
"Obama...The short take on Obama's view: <br /><br />"Obama made clear that he is only going to involve America more deeply in places like the Middle East to the extent that the different communities there agree to an inclusive politics of no victor/no vanquished. The United States is not going to be the air force of Iraqi Shiites or any other faction. . . .<br /><br />At the end of the day, the president mused, the biggest threat to America — the only force that can really weaken us — is us. We have so many things going for us right now as a country — from new energy resources to innovation to a growing economy — but, he said, we will never realize our full potential unless our two parties adopt the same outlook that we’re asking of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds or Israelis and Palestinians: No victor, no vanquished and work together.<br /><br />“Our politics are dysfunctional,” said the president, and we should heed the terrible divisions in the Middle East as a “warning to us: societies don’t work if political factions take maximalist positions. And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions.”<br /><br />The full take, NYTimes interview: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/opinion/president-obama-thomas-l-friedman-iraq-and-world-affairs.html?_r=0 <br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-22383669446999998462014-08-09T12:36:46.523-04:002014-08-09T12:36:46.523-04:00George - I don't agree with your assumption th...George - I don't agree with your assumption that there was a way to "manage the end game" in Iraq. Johnson and Nixon inherited another war in which there was no manageable way out, other than to cut our losses and withdraw the troops.<br /><br />I agree that Johnson cannot be blamed for the mistakes of his predecessor. Neither can Obama. I think his view of the proper use of American military power is very different from Bush and the neo-Cons. I happen to think it is the correct view.<br /><br />Both Vietnam and Iraq, from the get-go, were "quagmires" into which we had no business sending our troops. The decision to bring about "regime change" in Iraq is the greatest foreign policy blunder in US history.<br /><br />And that decision was based on lies, worthless intelligence, untrustworthy sources (Chalibi, "Curveball," and the neo-Con founders of the Project for a New American Century who, in 1998, were urging the overthrow of Saddam Hussein), and a "Bring 'Em On" swagger that worked in Dodge City but does not work in 21st century geopolitics.<br /><br />The timeline for withdrawal from Iraq had already been set by the time Obama took office. [Iraq and U.S. agree that all U.S. forces will withdraw "no later than December 31, 2011." On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, often referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009."]<br /><br />That indicates to me that they - Bush and Advisors - believed 1) that we had won (whatever that meant to them), 2) that we had accomplished our strategic goals (whatever those might have been), or 3) that there was no good way out and the best thing to do was cut our losses and withdraw.<br /><br /> Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-28689790904274979882014-08-09T10:24:01.875-04:002014-08-09T10:24:01.875-04:00Pater Ignotus:
I've got to go with Anonymous a...Pater Ignotus:<br />I've got to go with Anonymous and Mark on this one. President Kennedy got us involved in Vietnam. He thought he was doing the right thing. Ditto Mr Bush and Iraq. President Johnson cannot be blamed for the policies of his predecessor. He can only be blamed for his own policy getting us more deeply involved in that conflict which ended in a much greater loss of life in that the war than in Iraq. Now one could argue whether the mistake was getting us involved in the first place or whether the blunder was in how the war and its aftermath was conducted. Presidents make decisions and sometimes they turn out to be very bad decisions. A far as Mr Obama, when a person assumes a leadership position, they inherit what their predecessor left, the good and the bad. So whether its a football coach a CEO or a president, they assume responsibility. They do this willingly with knowledge of what they are getting into. It seems to me from what I can gather, that Mr Obama was not as engaged with what was transpiring in Iraq as he should have been. Either that, or he just decided to let things play out. It is often after hostilities that a war is one or lost. Mr Obama did not manage the end game well at all. Now it could very well be that had someone else been elected president, things would have turned out the same. We'll never know. What concerns me (and should concern all Catholics) is that this administration has been on a dedicated mission to promote and spread abortion, contraception, gay marriage in countries around the world that have up to now been resisting these things.<br />It is not how history will judge Mr Obama's governance that is of greater importance, but rather how God will judge him.<br />Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-88617963630692722562014-08-09T08:31:51.185-04:002014-08-09T08:31:51.185-04:00Anglican Mark - No, I do not think "everythin...Anglican Mark - No, I do not think "everything is Bush's fault." But the situation in Iraq with ISIS most definitely is Bush's fault. <br /><br />It is his fault and the fault of the raft of neo-Con advisors, primarily Vice President Dick Cheney, who urged him to attack Iraq, destabilizing that country and region.<br /><br />I would appreciate it if you could explain how ISIS is Obama's fault. Simply asserting that "his actions" led to the formation of ISIS, or simply asserting that "his decisions in foreign policy" led to genocide is insufficient.<br /><br />No one is ignoring the horror - like you I pray regularly that it will end. I don't "hate" Bush, but I am not willing to ignore the essential part he and his neo-Con advisors played in the destabilization of the region that remains in tragic turmoil.<br /><br />And if you don't think that quoting the people who took us into war is sufficient evidence to show their involvement, I'd ask you what is.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-22294176509161348562014-08-09T00:36:01.585-04:002014-08-09T00:36:01.585-04:00Pater,
I never absolved Pres. Bush. Sadly you are...Pater,<br /><br />I never absolved Pres. Bush. Sadly you are so leftist you fail to think clearly. Everything is Bush's fault to you. So you absolve you icon Obama. <br /><br />This is Obama's failure. Every President has failed, IKE warned Kennedy to stay out of SE Asia. Ooops, the lefts golden boy got us involved in a war we lost and cost us 57000 KIA. Johnston and Nixon expanded the war. <br /><br />Is Kennedy responsible for what Johnston and Nixon did? No. Bush had his failures. If you actually read what I wrote and understand you would know that. But your hatred for Bush clouds your ability to think correctly.<br /><br />ISIS occurred on Obama's watch. His actions lead to it. ISIS came into being after Bush. Obama's decisions in foreign policy has lead to the genocide in the Middle East. He backs the wrong people. <br /><br />I dislike President Obama. He supports every evil man has thought of, such as abortion. But when I heard the US had bombed ISIS today and dropped supplies to the stranded, I was happy and supportive. I think more needs to be done and hope Obama will do more...well Congress under the Constitution should be the one making the decisions, not Obama.<br />Right thinking people can set aside differences for a common goal. Leftists and extremists are unable. <br />So as ISIS now beheads Christian children and puts their heads on pikes, the leftist scream it Bush's fault. Drag up phrases, comments, banners in their orgasmic display of hating Bush. And what happens, women have their throats cut, children beheaded, men crucified. All the pictures are on Catholic Online. But if you do go there, beware, the pictures will sicken you.<br /><br />So pater and anonymous, babble on hating Bush and ignoring the horror. Rest secure that at least in your twisted mind all is right in the world. Bush is hated,babies are killed....wasting time hating Bush is so much more important.<br /><br />So as Canon White and the Bishops of Iraqi plead for help, lets just tell them to wait...bashing Bush is so much more fun and satisfying.<br /><br />Oh and Clinton admits, there is audio records, he had a chance to kill Osama back in the 90's and did not. So Clinton is responsible for 9/11? Only a loon would say that.....same about Bush.<br /><br />Mark<br />The Anglican Priest<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47127154389880680592014-08-09T00:07:14.137-04:002014-08-09T00:07:14.137-04:00In retrospect the second Gulf War was a mistake. M...In retrospect the second Gulf War was a mistake. Most now acknowledge that. It's important to note that 82 Democrats in the House and 29 Democrats in the U.S.Senate voted for the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Saddam. Who were some of these 29 in the Senate? Let's see... there was Diane Feinstein, Christopher Dodd, Tom Harkin, Jay Rockefeller, Hillary Clinton, and the late Mel Carnahan(hardly right -wingers). Going further down the list who do we find (surprise, surprise) but non other than Joe Biden, John Kerry and Harry Reid. Well, well. <br />Now one could also go back a couple of decades and hash out the blunders made by the Johnson Administration in micro-managing the Vietnam war but what useful purpose would that serve here?Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-28949932481323392582014-08-08T21:34:10.477-04:002014-08-08T21:34:10.477-04:00Anon 2, My views on Bush and the war are not a sud...Anon 2, My views on Bush and the war are not a sudden change. Like I said, I liked and supported Bush, but did not agree with his policies in the Gulf War,etc. <br />I have far better sources than Wikipedia for WW II, which I have spent quite a few years studying. Most of the opinions about Allied bombing fall along political lines. But, one major line is that the Germans started it. Churchill deliberated and worried about bombing civilian targets, fearing we would 'lose the very values we are fighting to preserve." The Germans did not even deliberate before killing thousands of British citizens with V weapons (true terror weapons). To even compare the motivations and values of the Allies with those of the Nazis shows a naiveté that goes beyond comprehension. Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-86662284606948595962014-08-08T19:54:15.553-04:002014-08-08T19:54:15.553-04:00Anon 2 - Adelman's "cakewalk" commen...Anon 2 - Adelman's "cakewalk" comment is one of hundreds, if not thousands, of such examples.<br /><br />"Saddam 'has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.' —Secretary of State Colin Powell 2/24/01<br /><br />"PNAC letter to Bush: 'Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.'" 9/20/01<br /><br />"Bush briefed by intel community that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11." 9/21/01<br /><br />"Cheney on Meet the Press: "Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists." Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he'll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow." 12/9/01<br /><br />"Downing Street memo: "There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with Al Qaida…In the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran or North Korea as to justify action." 3/25/02<br /><br />And the list goes on and on and on. The quotes are taken from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline<br /><br />Anglican Mark's "MOS," his service in the second Gulf War, and his attempt to absolve Bush and his neo-Con cronies from their responsibility don't amount to a hill of beans. The facts, not the politically motivated emotions, are undeniable.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-81067597804084965992014-08-08T19:37:20.878-04:002014-08-08T19:37:20.878-04:00Anonymous and Gene:
I read the linked article fro...Anonymous and Gene:<br /><br />I read the linked article from Ann Barnhardt. Here are my thoughts<br /><br />(1) I was finding the article intriguing but became increasingly irritated at the constantly repeated verbal sleight of hand that referred to swords as the “assault weapons” of the era. The constant repetition of this phrase suggests a clear agenda. And with the suggested “prophecy” about Islam at the end I thought she really lost her grip on reality and her agenda became even clearer. <br /><br />(2) I then researched the Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims English translation. Here is an article (I suspect it is pre-Vatican II but do not know) that suggests much, much more complexity and uncertainly regarding this matter than the author suggests. Good luck with it. I found it heavy going and it vastly increased my respect for biblical scholars who devote their lives to this stuff:<br /><br />http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470<br /><br />Of course, I stand to be corrected in these impressions but I think we need a bona fide and truly learned biblical scholar to weigh in if we are to avoid simplistic conclusions about the meaning of these texts.<br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-73622442867959204162014-08-08T17:34:18.740-04:002014-08-08T17:34:18.740-04:00Anonymous:
It seems that you are more or less cor...Anonymous:<br /><br />It seems that you are more or less correct about the Mission Accomplished point:<br /><br />http://csis.org/blog/bush-never-said-%E2%80%9Cmission-accomplished%E2%80%9D<br /><br />Thank you for correcting the prevalent misperception on that point. However, this does not really blunt the force of the criticism of the entire misadventure.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-25266128688631746042014-08-08T17:26:49.976-04:002014-08-08T17:26:49.976-04:00Gene:
Yesterday you agreed with Pater Ignotus (an...Gene:<br /><br />Yesterday you agreed with Pater Ignotus (and by implication with me too) about the invasion of Iraq:<br /><br />“Actually, I agree with Ignotus that Bush's policy was short-sighted and ill conceived.”<br /><br />Why the sudden change?<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-51855621168871752212014-08-08T17:22:43.541-04:002014-08-08T17:22:43.541-04:00Pater Ignotus:
You forgot one: Kenneth Adelman’s ...Pater Ignotus:<br /><br />You forgot one: Kenneth Adelman’s “cakewalk” comment. Some cake we baked!Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-9392477317780614352014-08-08T17:14:30.666-04:002014-08-08T17:14:30.666-04:00Just read the Wikipedia article, Gene, if you dare...Just read the Wikipedia article, Gene, if you dare. It will tell you all you need to know about Allied (and German) bombing of civilians. And I can give you more scholarly sources as well. Many people just do not want to face the ugly truth. Of course, my mother had to face it directly as a student at the University of Cologne during the War. <br /><br />We can talk details if you want although we have already done that in earlier threads but you have probably forgotten that. <br /><br />What the British (and to a lesser extent the Germans) did in bombing civilians was a war crime, but of course the victors write the rules and try the defendants.<br /><br />Let me know if you would also like to talk about the deliberate efforts to starve the German population after the War. We could have a nice little chat about that too.<br /><br />No, Gene, I am under no illusions whatsoever about the evil of war.<br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1661200239632431062014-08-08T15:25:42.152-04:002014-08-08T15:25:42.152-04:00Thank you, Anonymous. What you write is dead on. I...Thank you, Anonymous. What you write is dead on. I will read Ann's article. Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47322283075806400942014-08-08T13:55:25.680-04:002014-08-08T13:55:25.680-04:00Gene have you seen this article from Ann?http://ww...Gene have you seen this article from Ann?http://www.barnhardt.biz/the-one-about-jesus-and-guns/<br /><br />It's a pretty good exegesis on the matter that I can't find flaw with - though I know many theologians will have conniptions. <br /><br />Those who are pirates, thugs, robbers, unjust aggressors will continue to prey on the innocent until stopped by force. They rarely give up on their own. But who wields the force that stops them? If confederates then the injustice would never stop. But only if the implication is that just men stop unjust men could we ever have periods of peace in the world.<br /><br />The Pate Ignotius' of the world will point to police - just men who are armed and stop there. Their faith is in the "state" however assembled. But that's merely to confuse one application from the premise which is that human beings have a right to their lives and so ought to have the right to the means of defending their lives (including private property). If we posit that human beings have a right to self defense, then it follows they have a right to the means appropriate to that defense.<br /><br />Sure, contracting some mercenary to be a body guard or security guard is fine, it makes economic sense. But contracting the job out to someone does not annul the human right! <br /><br />This is what the US 2nd Amendment is based on - the insight that rights come from our nature as human beings, NOT from some sovereign king or assembly of powerful men called "the state". If human beings didn't have a right to property or defense then neither would groups of humans called "the state" have such rights!<br /><br />So we civilians look at the serial genocides against unarmed civilians the world over and conclude that this is what invariably happens when governments insist on a monopoly of weapons "in the name of public safety". When vast numbers of peaceful people are also unarmed, it is just a matter of time before the ruthless wolves begin to prey on them and feckless governments withhold protection.<br /><br />Si vis pacem, para bellum. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-7349688970473699372014-08-08T10:53:02.502-04:002014-08-08T10:53:02.502-04:00Ignotus is your typical liberal, looking for anybo...Ignotus is your typical liberal, looking for anybody but themselves to blame for the deplorable state of the nation and the world.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-31139335487388591732014-08-08T09:33:54.961-04:002014-08-08T09:33:54.961-04:00Pater Ignotus, the "mission accomplished"...Pater Ignotus, the "mission accomplished" banner was flown for the aircraft carrier on which Bush flew to thank the crew. It wasn't a statement about the entire war but about that ship's involvement in it.<br /><br />But you'd not get this from the left wing media. You'd only get it from the ship's own media. It was their sign, for their mission, which they had accomplished and were proud of.<br /><br />Typical false memories of liberals.... you just can't accept that Obama has had any responsibility AT ALL. You simply can't accept that Hillary accomplished NOTHING positive as Sec of State with respect to the US position in the Middle east. She was (is) hell bent on promoting secular hedonism (abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc.) around the world via the US embassies and NGOs and that obviously led to immediate opposition by Catholics and other Christians. So allowing these same 'obstacles' to "the right side of history" to be removed by ISIS is par for the course.<br /><br />The administration airdropped food to the pagans on the mountain, not to the Christians. They intervened now - when they could have blasted the ISIS convoys approaching Mosul. We own the skies. We could blow up any vehicle that moves. We're not helpless. If ISIS is still alive it's because our administration as determined that it's tolerable.<br /><br />Otherwise, why no airstrikes on behalf of the Iraqi government we're supposedly allied with?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com