• lfbno7 said on Mar 23, 2008....

  My problem with your post is one that you mentioned at the end. You're all over the place. I like things more direct. I get uncomfortable when I'm not looking at a direct straight line.
  
  To analyze the current situation in Iraq, I want to start with "Why are we there?". And put that answer into a simple sentence. I do believe the answers to our questions are found in simple direct sentences.
  
  Could you humor me and give me one simple sentence explaining why we're there? With that accomplished, we can then discuss whether the reason is "worth it", and also whether we will be able to accomplish it.
  
  Some suggested "why we're there's" ....
  
  1. Because we had to throw Saddam out, and having done that, we need to stabilize the place so it doesn't erupt in violence and chaos and God knows what else.
  
  2. Because we had to be sure they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and now we need to stabilize the place before we leave.
  
  3. Because we want a permanent base in the Middle East, as a counterweight to jihadism.
  
  4. Because we want a permanent base in the Middle East, to give more support to our most reliable ally in the area, beleaguered Israel, always under threat of being outnumbered and driven into the sea.
  
  5. Because we want more security that we will never be deprived of Middle East oil, and a permanent base in the Middle East will help that.
  
  6. Because business interests in America close to the president saw an opportunity to make a mint by taking a more hands-on approach with Iraqi oil.
  
  7. Be my guest to suggest other possible reasons as "the one and only reason we're really there". I do believe in "one and only reasons". I like things simple and direct. And I believe that whenever we have a choice to make, we can make a long list of pros and cons, but there is one overall, shining reason at the top of one of those two lists, and it carries the decision.

• stopmediabias said on Mar 23, 2008....

  lbno-I swear you have these moments of brilliance that you spread out then you just take a big crap all over them (number 6) and all people see and smell is the crap.

  Grape-"We're in Iraq as occupiers."

  If we are in Iraq as occupiers in the implication you are making Iraq would be a large crater.  Also thousands upon thousands of Iraqi volunteers wouldn't be giving their lives if we were mear occupiers.  

  "Let's not kid ourselves and say that we're bringing them freedom and cheeseburgers.  They don't even want that shit."

  Shit?  I let you rethink this statement before I tear it to shreds.  Good God, everyone loves cheeseburgers.  Humor aside I find this statement very appalling.

  "Do you see American soldiers dying to win?  Not really.  They're there for college money and citizenship.  I'm tired of people saying that an American life lost in Iraq is a god damn tragedy.  It's a volunteer army, ok?  So some poor kid who wants to go to college or some immigrant wants his citizenship, or some patriotard, red-state asshole with a room-temperature IQ wants to go play cowboys and indians with a bunch of Arabs and gets his arm or leg blown off by an IED, isn't a god damn tragedy"

   What is this?  You are talking about your own country and your own people.  Why don't you go to a military funeral and tell moms and dads that the death an American life is not a tragedy. 

  I can't argrue with you.  I see you as one of these angry Liberals who hate their own country and everything it stands for.  We are a source of good in the world despite all the conspiracy-ridden garbage that is put out.

  "Depoliticized populous with limited participation in a free market economy.  Selling out the wealth of this country(industrial prowess and manufacturing capabilities) and importing poverty, adapting to a service sector economy. "

  Where do you people come up with this stuff?  Our free market economy has created and contributed to the greatest country in the world and stands almost as a foundation of the world economy.

  Why are you guys so miserable?  Actually I don't really care but why do you have to make everyone else around you miserable?

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 23, 2008....

  no7:  Unfortunately, history doesn't happen in a nice, clear "time line", contrary to what world history textbooks tell us.  Usually an event occurs by many different circumstances, culminating into a single point of action, that triggers a myriad of other events.  There are a whole host of reasons why we're in Iraq.  If you think there's one, over-arching reason why we're there, I dare say that your viewpoint is too "narrow" in scope. 
  
  Part of the reason why we're there is because America's inherited the "crown" of western civilization from the corpse of Britain and Germany and has to play global police.  In the 50's it was to stop the spread of the red menace that was Bolshevism, nowadays, it's to continue the Crusades against Dar al' Islam.  It's also to protect Israel, for oil, to protect trans-national market interests.  They're all tied together.  You can't extricate one and say, "that's why we're there".  It doesn't work like that in my book.  However, I will try to go over some of the points with you briefly. 
  
  "1. Because we had to throw Saddam out, and having done that, we need to stabilize the place so it doesn't erupt in violence and chaos and God knows what else."-  We didn't have to throw Saddam out.  We did throw him out because he outlived his usefulness, but he was a secular leader, with his bootheels on extreme Islam.  He had his country under control, in relative stability(especially considering the fact that Iran-Iraq war took place not too long ago).  A "stabilizing figure in the region", to quote Donald Rumsfeld in the '80's.  As a matter of fact, University of Baghdad was a bastion of learning in the Arab world before US intervention. 
  
  During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis were dropping chemical and biological weapons purchased from the US and by using US spy intel.  The only reason why we "suspected" him of having WMDs is because we gave them to him.  Who knew he'd wasted them all on the Kurds after the war?  A Stalinist-era strongman, he believed in Pan-Arabism, and wanted to unite the Middle East against the influences of the West.  His mistake was in assuming that the other Arab nations would fall in line behind him and tow the line.  So he went rogue and attacked Kuwait, lobbed a few missiles at Israel.  That made him a "menace" in the region(more so because he threatened trans-national market interests) and had to be eliminated. 
  
  Oh and Iraq erupted in violence and chaos after we got there.  Sure, he killed a bunch of Kurds(who could use their own state, btw., considering that they have their own language and culture and whatnot), but that can be construed as an internal affair.  Whoever heard of starting a war over internal affairs?  We didn't invade China for Mao starting the cultural revolution, and they killed more of "their own people" than Stalin.  When America got to Iraq, it turned a country that was politically stable(relatively speaking) under a despot into a hotbed of terrorist activity, a beacon for militant Islam, and a rallying point for extreme fundamentalism. 
  
  "2. Because we had to be sure they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and now we need to stabilize the place before we leave". -Covered above.  The only reason we "suspected" him of having WMD is because we gave them to him, taught him how to manufacture it.  He only used it on the Kurds(internal issue).  Was it that it was feared that it'd be used against Israel and we were taking pre-emptive measures?  I guess it could be seen that way.  A part of the reason perhaps, albeit a small part, IMO. 
  
  "3. Because we want a permanent base in the Middle East, as a counterweight to jihadism".-  Not as a counterweight to jihadism, but perhaps to keep the Arab nations from forming a united political front, maybe.  Totally unnecessary, as most Arabs are mired in their regional differences and allegiances to ever put anything together.  Pan-Arabism is a dangerous thing.  Don't get me wrong.  It directly threatens the projection of power and dominance enjoyed by the West for so long.  But is the alternative better?  US being in Iraq breeds more extremism, more terrorists.  Iraq before the days of the war had a pretty solid security apparatus against her own people.  Like I said, Saddam was a secular leader who kept the bootheels on Islamic fundamentalism.  While he was in power, the only places that militant Islam had a toehold was in parts of Pakistan, sub-Saharan Africa, and Palestine.  Now they're all over Iraq.  Good job, America. 
  
  "4. Because we want a permanent base in the Middle East, to give more support to our most reliable ally in the area, beleaguered Israel, always under threat of being outnumbered and driven into the sea".-Can't really argue with this.  Though I must ask the wisdom of continued, biased support the US shows towards Israel and how this could be continued without harboring resentment from other countries in the region.  This link will provide you with a PDF file concerning the Israeli lobby and how it influences US foreign policy.  Don't just chalk it up as anti-zionist propaganda, either.  It as published by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science and Stephen M.Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and they make some compelling arguments.  I suggest you give it a read and consider this particular point again. 
  
  "5. Because we want more security that we will never be deprived of Middle East oil, and a permanent base in the Middle East will help that. "-  Maybe.  Who does this really benefit, though?  We've been in Iraq for 5 years now, and the gas prices are higher than ever.  If we went in there for oil, why am I paying $3.50 for a gallon still?  Well...  Exxon mobil reached record profits last year, so I guess it's helping someone out.  Just not regular folks like you and me. 
  
  "6. Because business interests in America close to the president saw an opportunity to make a mint by taking a more hands-on approach with Iraqi oil".- Perhaps your best point so far.  Halliburton billing the military for monogrammed hand towels has that particular aroma to it, doesn't it?  Money definitely has a lot to do with the reasons behind the war.  It has more to do with money than it has to do with fighting terror, in my opinion. 
  
  Sorry I couldn't give you a single reason, no7.  I'm very much a big-picture kinda guy, you know?  Unfortunately, the big picture seems to resemble a "Where's Waldo?" drawing. 
  
  stopmedia: 
  "If we are in Iraq as occupiers in the implication you are making Iraq would be a large crater.  Also thousands upon thousands of Iraqi volunteers wouldn't be giving their lives if we were mear occupiers." 
  
  Perhaps I didn't make myself clear on this one.  What I meant to say was that we're occupiers "pretending" to be liberators.  What I mean to say is that if we're going to be occupiers, let's start acting like one.  Reduce Iraq into a smouldering rubble, pilfer it's natural resources, round up and shoot all the men of fighting age, enslave a large percentage of their population, then be on our way.  The type of work that befits the dignity of a national military.  Not hand holding and nation building. 
  
  It's the job of the Iraqi volunteers to work toward stability.  It's their country after all.  Though I remember that Saddam had things pretty well under control before we went in there and mucked things up. 
  
  "Shit?  I let you rethink this statement before I tear it to shreds.  Good God, everyone loves cheeseburgers.  Humor aside I find this statement very appalling."
  
  Cheeseburgers are not kosher, just so you know.  Not everyone loves cheeseburgers.  Kleptocracy, too.  Not everyone's behind the program on that one either.  What really gets me is the sheer arrogance that most Americans are under, thinking that their way is the "right" way and the "best" way.  It may be for Americans(though that's a completely different debate for a different post), has it occurred to you that it may not be the "right" nor the "best" way for the rest of the world?  Parts of the old world tend to agree with me on this point.  Why else would Palestine elect Hamas?  Because they're "stupid"?  "Misinformed"?  How soon can we say that about our own population in the US?  Tear it to shreds?  Give it your best shot. 
  
  "What is this?  You are talking about your own country and your own people.  Why don't you go to a military funeral and tell moms and dads that the death an American life is not a tragedy."
  
  Like I said, that's what's called a shit job.  They volunteered for it.  Perhaps the poor kid trying to go to college is a bit sad, but tragic?  Hardly.  Flipping burgers is a crappy job, too, but not one of your customers want to blow you up to kingdom come.  They just want their god damn burgers without pickles, or hold the mayo, or whatever.  Sure, you won't get paid as much as being in the military, but at least you won't get blown up.  Well...  I guess there's a chance of the deep fryer going kablooey, but much slimmer than an IED. 
  
  "I can't argrue with you.  I see you as one of these angry Liberals who hate their own country and everything it stands for.  We are a source of good in the world despite all the conspiracy-ridden garbage that is put out."
  
  Here I am, talking about the splendor and dignity of our nation's military, and there you are, so willing to send them into doing shit jobs like nation building and policing work and I'm the one that hates my country?!!  Pfft.  Gimme a break.  I can argue with you.  I'll argue with you until my last dying breath because it's something I feel quite passionately towards.  I try not to get myself riled up over things like this as my viewpoints are in the minority, but I am a thinking person and can lay out my arguments in an organized fashion.  I don't have to resort to name-calling(though i do sometimes for shock value and because it's fun.  Plus, I'm not above stooping to that level), stereotyping and pigeonholing.  I have other weapons.  Those being, information, and the digested knowledge thereof. 
  
  I resent you calling me a liberal.  While I may have some "liberal" tendencies, I reject the fundamental ethos of the liberal viewpoints.  If you need to classify me as anything, I'd probably be closer to an "anti-federalist", or a "Goldwater conservative", which the neocons(who are just trotskyites under a transnational premise) seems to have forgotten all about. 
  
  "Where do you people come up with this stuff?  Our free market economy has created and contributed to the greatest country in the world and stands almost as a foundation of the world economy"
  
  Umm...  I'm just going to take a wild stab here and say...  Books?  Go and tell a steelworker in Indiana, or an auto-plant worker in Ohio that it's a great thing that his job got shifted overseas so that the board members and stockholders can make more money.  Cover your nose, though.  He may punch you in the face afterwards.  Thinking that free-trade(and not fair-trade) is good for this country is very short sighted.  Soon, we're going to have to ask the Chinese for permission to go to war and ask them to make our weapons. 
  
  When the Chinese start humping Tibetans around(which they're prone to do), what do we do about it?  Wring our hands and wave our fingers?  Will we even do that?  China's supposed to be the "most oppressive" regime in the world.  Why aren't we warring with them?  Don't the Chinese want and need "Liberation" and "Democracy"?  You can't have one and not the other.  You can't think Iraq's a good idea and China's not.  Not if you think it's the US' job to police the world(which I don't). 
  
  Lastly, "Why are you guys so miserable?  Actually I don't really care but why do you have to make everyone else around you miserable?"
  
  I'm not miserable.  I just a little uncomfortable about some of the things that our FedGov does.  Just a little bit.  If you're miserable(if you're around me, that is, which in some sense you are, since you're reading and commening), it could be for many reasons.  It could be that my points cause a moral dilemma for thinking Americans, or it could be that you're having a hard time wrapping your brain around all this and are frustrated at your own shortcomings.  I'm not your therapist.  I don't know why. 
  
  I love this country.  Make no mistake about that.  I love this country the way any mature, thinking person would, and try to make it better.  You on the other hand, love this country like unconditionally, and believe that this country can do no wrong.  I think therein lies our differences.
  
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  I'm late for Easter brunch now.  I'll be back if there's something I left unaddressed.  Happy Easter you guys.  Thanks for commenting. 
  

• stopmediabias said on Mar 23, 2008....

  Good God man brevity!  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/120405/Freedom-is-Worth-It

   "Reduce Iraq into a smouldering rubble, pilfer it's natural resources, round up and shoot all the men of fighting age, enslave a large percentage of their population, then be on our way.  The type of work that befits the dignity of a national military.  Not hand holding and nation building." 
  

  There seems to be some fundamental flaws in whatever your argument is.  We are not pretending to be liberators.  As soon as the security situation improves and we work out a few issues Iraq will no longer be living in fear.  Nation building is in the interest of the world in that region.  If your going to talk about the dignity of our military then I would suggest you encourage them to be like Kahn or Hitler.

  "What really gets me is the sheer arrogance that most Americans are under, thinking that their way is the "right" way and the "best" way.  It may be for Americans(though that's a completely different debate for a different post), has it occurred to you that it may not be the "right" nor the "best" way for the rest of the world?"

   Our way is right and our way is the best way.  Compared to any other country in the world we are the most stable and greatest source of good in the world.  How many people has Saddam Hussien and his pysho son's tortured and murdered recently?  It is not arrogance, it patriotism and believe it or not it is a good thing.  "Our way" is not really our way, it is the worlds way.  We tell people they can live there life without worry of government repression.  We are not forcing our culture on them.

  "Parts of the old world tend to agree with me on this point.  Why else would Palestine elect Hamas?  Because they're "stupid"?  "Misinformed"?  How soon can we say that about our own population in the US?  Tear it to shreds?  Give it your best shot." 

  The Palestinians have been hoodwinked by a bunch of extremists.  Do actually think they want a government that forces them to live in a certain way?

  "They volunteered for it.  Perhaps the poor kid trying to go to college is a bit sad, but tragic?" 

  To volunteer and sacrifice everything in the service of ones country is greatest honor anyone can have.  The tragic part is we have to make the decision to sacrifice good people.  We shouldn't have to make such decisions.

  "Umm...  I'm just going to take a wild stab here and say...  Books?  Go and tell a steelworker in Indiana, or an auto-plant worker in Ohio that it's a great thing that his job got shifted overseas so that the board members and stockholders can make more money."

  This is why it is called a free market.  Good and bad has to happen in order for us to have what we have.  The auto and steel workers have the opportunity to start their own businesses or find other possibly better jobs.   While I agree with you there are certain trade practices that should be abolished at the same time this is a level playing field. 

  "When the Chinese start humping Tibetans around(which they're prone to do), what do we do about it?  Wring our hands and wave our fingers?  Will we even do that?  China's supposed to be the "most oppressive" regime in the world.  Why aren't we warring with them?" 

  The Chinese didn't threaten us and the world.   Despite gross human rights violations they are emerging as a superpower.  We must pressure China and there people to adopt measures that will lead them to Democracy.  Is it in our interest and the interest of the world to disown them and not do any business with them because of their human rights violations?  If we did this we might as well throw in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc etc.  the list is endless and it is a slow process. 

  I apologize for calling you a liberal (even though we conservatives don't throw it out as an insult) I guess I see you as one of those middle of the road people.

  Do you think we should just yank all of our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible?

  Happy Easter

   

• beyondtheveil said on Mar 23, 2008....

  grape- Good post, better comeback.
  
  Just let me say I no more believe bush went in to remove a dictator oppressing his people and to remove WMD's than I believe in the tooth fairy and it's daddy.
  
  The military complex is entrenched in our society and the prez and family and friends are up to their necks in oil. I do want the oil to flow, however, because it would be disastrous for us otherwise and they know it. But alas, no one in politics has the balls to concentrate on a serious plan to lessen dependency except to hot air about it and project a pseudo image for popularity and a few more votes.
  
  Were there many reasons for going into Iraq? Sure. Money and control provide a bucket full of reasons.
  
  As to the Civil War, Sherman may have been a psychopath, but Grant was the most incapable general with name recognition to have ever donned stars. He may have been a better general than president, though.
  

• andora said on Mar 23, 2008....

  oh, I didn't know we weren't supposed to give long reply's...thanks for the heads up - I guess I'll shut up now:)

• andora said on Mar 23, 2008....

  dear Grape,
  I followed you just fine... I follow history enough to know there really never was an independent US of A. I totally agree with you about the civil war, it was about economics and the South was getting rich off of slave labor while the North was about to lose the power that English banks had consolidated. These banking systems from England have always dictated US policy and expansionism. the U.S. is not a sovereign nation and has only been so in name.
  
  Iraq is a bloody joke, however, I do believe that it is causing conscientous people like yourself to speak out about the brutal injustice of  IMPERIALISM.
  
  Ownership ideas are also a joke - land speculators have been running the government and choking the life out of true wealth...family farms.
  
  Two main points come to mind in regard to historical indicators that we are living in a fascist police state that calls itself free:
  
  1) 10% fractional banking  has gutted our national wealth and Georgie Porgie has finished the feeding frenzy...we have no wealth, and our rivers and lakes are dead - broken food chain - all starts with the illusion of wealth that despoils real wealth
  
  2) paperless voting trail has become the final nail in the coffin of any democracy that we may have been able to form in the future
  
  I love your passion, I agree with your pov in many ways and I believe with all of my heart that people like you and i should become agriculturally self-sufficient so that when the dust finally settles from the blue/red civil war that we will prevail through peaceful dissent without sacrificing our needs. aloha Grapekoolaid, you be the type of politico i like.
  
  

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 23, 2008....

  stopmedia:  Just addressing the points you've raised...  Politics isn't something I do often, because like I said, I get accused of being both a fascist and a commie by misguided people.  This is the reason why i generally stay clear of the milieu.  However, when I decide to speak on the matter, I consider the issue carefully and try to argue my points in the simplest way. 
  
  As much as I want to address all of your points, I will pick and choose aspects of it for "brevity's sake". 
  
  "There seems to be some fundamental flaws in whatever your argument is.  We are not pretending to be liberators.  As soon as the security situation improves and we work out a few issues Iraq will no longer be living in fear.  Nation building is in the interest of the world in that region.  If your going to talk about the dignity of our military then I would suggest you encourage them to be like Kahn or Hitler."
  
  I forgot to mention salting the earth.  "Carthago delenda est", my friend.  A national army is there to meet another in a field of battle.  Push button warfare has pretty much leveled the playing field so that any scoundrel can kill any lord or gentleman, but there's no honor in killing 300 people from 10'000 feet up in the air with a JDAM, IMO. 
  
  "Our way is right and our way is the best way.  Compared to any other country in the world we are the most stable and greatest source of good in the world.....  It is not arrogance, it patriotism and believe it or not it is a good thing.  "Our way" is not really our way, it is the worlds way.  We tell people they can live there life without worry of government repression.  We are not forcing our culture on them."  and  "To volunteer and sacrifice everything in the service of ones country is greatest honor anyone can have.  The tragic part is we have to make the decision to sacrifice good people.  We shouldn't have to make such decisions."
  
  I forgot to mention one other group of people who join the military.  True believers.  Participants of America: the Cult.  The faithful.  The fundamental problem with Christianity is that it is a religion that proselytizes.  It teaches people to go out there, be confrontational, and get in people's faces.  This problem is not unique to Christianity.  The spread of Dar al' Islam comes at the cost of accepting the Q'uran, or the scimitar.  So once again.  Going to Iraq in a volunteer army, get your shit blown off and maimed for market share so that Toby Keith can come visit you at the VA hospital and shake your stump is my idea of a shit job. 
  
  "How many people has Saddam Hussien and his pysho son's tortured and murdered recently?"
  
  Hussein and his sons haven't tortured anyone in a while...  Remember Abu Ghraib?  Just a change in management.  Waterboarding?  What was that about?  What I find telling is that you're so ready to condemn Iraq for killing their own people, and yet, strangely silent on China. 
  
  "The Chinese didn't threaten us and the world."
  
  So the Chinese aren't involved in a proxy war against the French in Sudan?  And a smart bomb, that can hit a moving car from several hundred miles away just got "accidentally dropped" on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in '99?  China is a far bigger threat than Iraq could ever hope to be.  China is a nuclear power, a major player in the world, a permanent member of the UN security council(rightfully so)...  If there's a country that can counterbalance the Hegemon(US), it's China.  Especially if supported by Russia(which for the time being, it is).  Iraq was a bigger threat to Israel than it was to the US.  Let's at least be honest about that. 
  
  "The Palestinians have been hoodwinked by a bunch of extremists.  Do actually think they want a government that forces them to live in a certain way?"
  
  Situated value judgment.  How easily can we fit "Americans" in where "Palestinians" rest on that sentence?  Instead of "extremists", we put in "free-market transnationalists".  The FedGov tells us(through media conglomerates and public schools) to listen to your teachers, listen to the police, big brother knows best.  Don't ask any question, just do as you're told.  Product is happiness.  This type of flag-waving, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, window-licking brand of  patriotardism isn't practicing politics.  It's just a pep rally, a continuation of highschool. 
  
  "Do you think we should just yank all of our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible?"
  
  See, here is the catch:  Invading armies don't get to go home.  They have to stay there until they're kicked out.  The new siege of Acre will continue, but it won't last.  The influence of the West is ebbing, like it did 900 years ago.  I don't know what we should do, but I have a pretty good idea what's going to happen.  The US will withdraw from Iraq, leaving a garrison in Acre(The New US Embassy, a superstructure).  It will be housed by military personnel, thereby establishing a "permanent" military presence in the region.  The bulk of the military will go away. 
  
  This is what Ho Chi Minh knew in Vietnam(Never start a landwar in Asia).  He knew how to beat the US.  That wasn't done with superior weapons or better trained military.  US is beaten politically.  Americans tend to think in 4-8 year increments.  People in the Old World have a bigger perspective.  Another profound difference in the US way and the way of the Old World.  Another reason why free-market transnationalism doesn't fit in the Old World sometimes. 
  
  I better stop here.  As to your faithful support of free market economy and democracy, know that you are my enemy.  Politically speaking, of course.  I have no beef against you personally.  In fact, I find your comments very thought-provoking, hence the length of my comments.  I said I would be brief, but I ended up being quite in depth again.  Thanks for commenting. 
  
  I'll go check out your post momentarily. 
  
  btv:  Thanks.  I seem to have a bad case of the typing tourette's today.  :D
  
  The original post was born out of a comment, too.  I typed up a real long one then I thought, "I should just post this as a blog...  I shouldn't cram up someone's post with all this..." 
  
  "Money and control provide a bucket full of reasons."
  
  Thank you for saying something that took me a gazillion words to say in such succinct manner.  The sheer eloquence of it's simplicity is like a bolt of lightening at midnight.  :)
  
  Grant may have been incapable, but Sherman's crime is turning the guns on the people.  That's just messed up! 
  
  andora:  Please, feel free to be as long winded as you wish.  I like arguments that are well thought out.  If it takes a minute or two to lay them all out, by all means.  Don't feel like you have to limit yourself or censor yourself on any of my posts.  Sometimes generalized statements are not enough. 
  
  Very astute observations coming from you on the events leading up to the Civil War.  Freedom is illusory.  Especially in a panoptic state, where everyone has a camera and is happily snapping away and documenting every aspect of our lives. 
  
  Thank you very much for your compliment.  Unfortunately, I don't have any answers.   I can only see problems(room for improvement) and never a solution.  Probably why I find the world to be such a scary place... 

• andora said on Mar 23, 2008....

  You're quite welcome Grape. I see solutions in every direction as well as gihugic room for improvement.

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 23, 2008....

  andora:  Gihugic...  LOL.  I like that.  

• fearing said on Mar 25, 2008....

  Now I see you riled up.  ;-)  Very good post too btw.  I don't get into politics or the war very much {gasp}.  Smoke tends to roll out of my ears.  I'm torn as to whether I think our army should be there.  Basically I know enough to have an opinion but too little for it to be an educated one. 
  
  

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 25, 2008....

  fearing:  This is the reason why I've stopped talking about politics mostly.  It gets me all riled up.  :)  Like you, I had smoke coming out of my ears as I typed up this post and the following comments.  :D  I call it "Typing Tourette's".  
  
  I get the feeling that your opinions are plenty educated.  Even if you just read/watch mainstream media and the news, the conclusions you draw from the actual information that is leaked is different than most around you, I'd wager.  I think rather, you choose to remain silent about it in the hopes of not upsetting people's delicate sensibilities. 
  
  It's an admirable characteristic I should try to emulate more often, but sometimes, I feel the need to smack people around too strongly to keep my dang trap shut.  :)
  

• fearing said on Mar 25, 2008....

  And I should learn to speak up more.  We'll copy each other's strong points.  ;-)

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 25, 2008....

  It's a deal, lady.  I'll give you my "Typing Tourette's", and you give me a can of "Shut the Hell up" juice.  :D

• fearing said on Mar 25, 2008....

  lmbo!

• andora said on Mar 25, 2008....

  why in the world would we come to a blog where we can freely share our pov only to shut the fuck up?
  
  
  

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 25, 2008....

  andora:  Politics isn't something I discuss often for many reasons.  One of them being that it reveals me to be the malcontent that I am.  Another being that I mostly see it as being a pointless exercise in futility.  Because schools no longer teach proper rhetoric to children, people internalize the issues and end up taking things personally.  They see an attack on their position as being an attack on themselves, you know? 
  
  It's easy to do when discussing faith(something else I don't do often) and politics, because they are inextricably linked.  It's also intertwined with people's heart, so it's a delicate matter to approach.  I generally try to approach the topic after much consideration and with a modicum of decorum and decency, but even that's not enough at times. 
  
  I don't want you to feel censored in any way.  Not in my blogs, anyways.  I am prone to rants myself once in a while.  It's not often, but it happens.  I'm always glad to have input of any kind.  I appreciate your comments.  Always.  :)
  

• andora said on Mar 25, 2008....

  thanks Grape,
  I understand what you mean exactly...I got censored off of one thread already...
  
  for me though, I have a completely different belief structure about emotions and the  role they play in creating our reality.
  
  I actually come to a place like this once or twice a year for a period of time so that I can berate those who keep the conversation stuck within the absurd position of shame and blame...It is entirely healthy for me to vent this because I live in a remote place where I can keep separate from the dehumanizing forms of conversation that you mentioned...and then I go and do exactly what it is I wish we could get beyond...sheepish grin ;). This is my way of taking responsibility for those I am angry at...its circular...paradoxical...and I learn how biased I am - how angry I am and I learn to love my unpopular position for what it is and choose to evolve through self-awareness.
  
  I tend to feel ashamed of my strong, and at times, dehumanizing rage, but I believe that feeling rage about injustice and willful ignorance is virtuous. If more people realized that rage is a powerful life-force that should speak up in the face of injustice then the world would look very differently. Speaking up is quite different than acting-out. Violence is what the silent and hopeless resort to.
  
  As a result of venting my negative feelings, both in private and in safe arena's such as this, I have been able to mutate rage into simple anger...which then is able to act in productive ways. My anger, sadness and fear are no longer rage, grief and terror because I do not deny them, I mutate them into more moderate emotions by accepting them, acknowledging their origins, and thus I am able to take responsibility in very productive ways.
  
  I wrote a thesis about the magnetic polarity (our emotional self) that I have made available for free at www.pangasm.org because I am hell bent to liberate the negative truth into the light of love, instead of the dungeons of denial...I've made an impact in my personal life that is quite rewarding and as a result have been able to move outwardly to spread the good news about the principle of panGasm. I am in love with personal sovereignty and wish to offer solutions that have changed my imbalanced self into a heart-centered truth. You wouldn't know that by reading my frustrated and caustic posts here, simply because I brought my fucked-up, insecure, neurotic and emotional (fine) parts to air their stinking imbalance. Thank goodness I can do this anonymously because I do not wish to embarrass my family members who are still invested in presenting balance. I'm closer to enjoying a balanced, heartfelt existence than I ever was in the past, and as well... I have a ways to go....grin...
  
  I'm an evangelist for panGasm and unashamed of my audacity of self-acceptance. Some call this arrogance, as I occasionally do, but the truth about arrogance is that it is like pouring chanel # 5 over the outhouse of self-doubt posing as the voice of authority. Today, I am an authority about my own truth and it looks more and more like a fairy tale every day cus that's how I want it.
  
  DESIRE IS THE ALCHEMY OF MAGIC
  
  aloha friend
  

• Lucytorial said on Mar 27, 2008....

  scrolling scrolling scrolling to get to the bottom to comment!
  
  Phew! wow you certainly have passion thats for sure.  Its still sinking in and I'm still questioning things in my own mind about this whole topic.
  
  The only thing I know for sure is that any extremist action, indication is promoting not peace but war.  Politics has dabbled far too long in religion yet I'm coming to understand that you cannot have a political view in this world without it being based on some kind of religion, which in itself is scary.
  
  You have got my mind whirling grape! thanks.
  

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 27, 2008....

  andora:  Sorry...  I let this post go for a few days... 
  
  Interesting points you make.  I try my very best to take the stoic approach in all things, you know?  Worry about the things that I have direct control over, and let go of things that I do not...  Ultimately, the only things that I have control over are myself, and the environment that surrounds me.  Other people, politics, religion and such are beyond my control, so I tend not to worry about them.  I don't try to convert people or change them, because I see it as an exercise in futility.  Like I said before, the true and only impetus for change comes from within, you know?
  
  I also take a Buddhist approach to things as well(easier said than done, which is why I'm not a Buddhist).  Buddha says, "desire and ignorance lie at the root of suffering".  This is the second of the Four Noble Truths.  Therefore, eliminate desire and eliminate suffering.  A big step in that is worrying only about the things that you can control.  I realize that I still have far to go, but it's a start, nonetheless. 
  
  Do you see the irony of my thoughts and the posts I dedicate to my muse?  This is precisely why I say that it's easier said than done.  While I try my best to walk the path, I am an imperfect being, prone to a great sense of longing, bound by earthly desires, wants...  But it is in recognizing these traits withing myself that I can try to rise above the glandular pursuits which the hoi polloi obsess over.  It's a rough road ahead, but I walk undeterred, and am glad of the company I keep.  Even in virtual form such as this. 
  
  Nice to have you along for the walk.  :)
  
  Lucy:  Sorry.  I get a bit long-winded when it comes to discussing things of this nature.  It's because there are finer points and nuances that need to be addressed, and the usual "sound bytes" aren't satisfactory.  They never were. 
  
  The thing is, to participate in religion means to participate in politics.  One in a necessary extension of another.  If you think about it, secularism is a religion of a sort, too.  So is science.  People are just as dogmatic about their beliefs in secular humanism or sciences as the most fervent religious person, you know? 
  
  I always get a chuckle out of the people who belittle others for their faith in "god" while they themselves are just as dogmatic in their belief in the sciences.  If you ask me, religion and sciences are just two different ways of attacking the same question.  Neither of them have come up with "the answer".  There are gaping holes in both disciplines. 
  
  I never claimed to have any answers.  What I have are questions that lead to more questions.  Perhaps that's why I don't discuss politics and religion very often.  :)
  
  Thanks for stopping by to take a peek at this nonsense.  :)
  

• Lucytorial said on Mar 27, 2008....

  I'm in for that one too grape, I don't discuss it here a lot but in real life I do quite a lot.  I'm not nearly as flighty in real life as I am here.
  
  Its interesting that you say that religion and sciences are really just doing the same thing from a different angle, I've been thinking this myself and in so doing I have also taken a step back from judging to much.
  
  I prefer asking questions, when I don't get a satisfactory answer I ask someone else, its then I have deep conversations with my own mind about the information I have gathered.
  
  I rather enjoy the process and btw it wasn't long winded it was passionate, I like that a lot it shows integrity and shows that you believe in what you say.
  

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 27, 2008....

  I know you're not.  ;)  I can see past your words.  I read in between the lines and found you to be eloquent, whimsical, caring and deep. 
  
  It's all about constructing your weltanschauung, you know?  The foundations of which are constructed with society, upbringing, background, and so on...  You slowly build your situated value-judgements according to the sources of power that surround you, restrict and constrict you, "build" you, literally.  Asking questions is an important step, but what's more important is that ultimately, you have to come up with the answers yourself. 
  
  Thanks for your kind words.  It was very nice of you to say.  It was(and still is) a subject that I give much thought to, and I try to address the topic in a thoughtful manner.  It's the least I can do. 
  
  I have a responsibility to my readers, after all.  ;)
  

• Lucytorial said on Mar 27, 2008....

  Ahhh that you do you are also responsible for my latest post... in a way your showing special pics has just made me want to do it.... hop a long, and smile my friend.
  
  You sir are a very attractive man, any women lucky and smart and sensual enough to capture your heart and you hers is one damned lucky women!
  
  :-}
  

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 27, 2008....

  Attractive?  Let's not even go there...  I just saw the picture of you there, missy, and I gotta say, you're a vision! 
  
  Lucky?  I don't know about all that...  It's just a silly infatuation of a silly man...  I mean, what's the ardor of a scoundrel really worth?  ;)
  
  She is very special, though...  At least to me...  She is my rose... 
  
  What's most interesting to me is this:  How is it that someone that I'd never seen, or met in the quick, create such sense of longing?  Strange, don't you think?
  

• Lucytorial said on Mar 27, 2008....

  Not at all, in fact its probably more real than you think, just be careful though, the internet world is a dangerous world for emotions, been there and done that and I could tell you a story! man....
  
  Thanks for the compliment, that was years ago though... I don't usually wear ball gowns or that much make up and I have wrinkles.... (doesn't work saying that does it)
  
  Don't stop being silly and affectionate, and wildly smitten, it becomes you!
  

• andora said on Mar 28, 2008....

  for someone that doesn't believe in desire (longing) you express such in your words...as far as Buddhism goes...that is one unfortunate group...eliminating desire in the name of not feeling pain creates a vacuum of magnetic essence (we are electromagnetic beings - our thoughts are electric and emotions are magnetic). Since desire magnetically draws to us that which we desire, eliminating the desire draws random and at times unpleasant realities - as witnessed in Myanmar and Tibet - I see the orange robed ones getting persecuted today. Buddhism has many meaningful tenents - I've studies all the major cults...and, the basis of the principle of panGasm is PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY. By its very meaning (conversion connotes getting others to do something that does not come naturally)it is silly to suggest that to convert anyone to the principle of personal freedom of choice is harmful, unless their personal choice is to harm others or themselves. Denying our desires is a form of self-rejection that leaves up open to random realities we did not desire. Unfortunately, changing a life-time of denying our desire in the name of being virtuous requires that we release old beliefs by becoming AWARE of what it was we had been actively denying. This is why I am about to give up sharing this info with people over the age of 30...I'm tired of dodging stuck dysfunctional belief structures. Seeing rows and rows of men dressed in orange rocking back and forth in endless meditation and chanting is perverse in my not so humble opinion...but then again, I feel as though all organized ritualism is some kind of voodoo after all. Personal Sovereignty is a unique form of life that will lead to reverence that religions think they have the corner on. I worship love...period...beyond that religion seems like a waste of time. If this were true around the world there would be no possibility that the greedy could foment religious wars for their nefarious ends! My thoughts about Iraq...after all. I like the thoughtfulness of your sentiments and commend you on your sensitivity. aloha

• lfbno7 said on Mar 28, 2008....

  Stop the bias? Come on. I made 6 suggestions for reasons Bush invaded Iraq, and 5 of them were pro Bush. Then Stop The Bias started complaining about the 6th one. Hey, do you know what bias means? Must everything be your way? You are the epitome of bias yourself. If someone really objected to me being biased in my suggestions, they would have objected to the fact that 5 of my 6 suggested reasons were pro-Bush. Why not change your name to Stop Dissent.

• stopmediabias said on Mar 28, 2008....

  lbno-Lets rewind, this is what I said:

  lbno-I swear you have these moments of brilliance that you spread out then you just take a big crap all over them (number 6) and all people see and smell is the crap.

  As you can see I complimented you by saying "moments of brilliance" then I commented on number 6 because it is profoundly silly.  The list of other things were reasonable and I could agree with (number 5 is pushing it) them.

  The first thing on my blog identifies me as a conservative.  I define bias (that should be stopped) as what my local newspaper does.  The call themselves "the true paper of record" when they are actually an extreme left bunch of pinheads pushing their agenda.  This is grossly unfair to our troops and our President.

• lfbno7 said on Mar 28, 2008....

  Okay let's rewind then. I asked why Bush invaded Iraq. I made 6 suggestions of possible reasons, and I invited others to add more. I did not side with any of the suggestions. I was just brainstorming, and leaving it open for others to brainstorm along with me.
  
  Only one of the suggestions was critical of the administration, and you called that one profoundly silly. No, it's not silly.
  
  It wouldn't be the first time that business interests determined foreign policy. Look at Central America, at the banana republics. Business interests consistently determined foreign policy there.
  
  Look at our support for tyranny in Indonesia, and the way we ignored the mass murders in East Timor (during a Democratic administration, if I remember correctly). That was purely about money. Indonesia is the gold mine, always was. Keep the money flowing, kill the people.
  
  You don't see your own bias. People rarely do.
  
  There would be no confusion about why Bush invaded Iraq if the original reason held up. He was looking for weapons of mass destruction. That was the one and only reason given. If that turned out to make sense, we wouldn't have to look for his reason. Now, the original reason has been demoted to one of my six guesses about why he invaded Iraq. I honestly don't know why he did it. I suspect that he was bullshitting like all the politicians do, and I'm not psychic.

• andora said on Mar 28, 2008....

  in this regard, ifbno7 I agree with you and was inspired to post evidence of such...see the recent articles about Afghanistan and Iraq that I posted... if stopmediabias is truly unbiased, he or she will give a reasonable debate about the evidence that both Iraq and Afghanistan were corporate oil wars...
  
  Darfur is proof that our gov cares little about people who are being persecuted, unless there is something in it for them. If you cannot comment to the evidence stopmediabias, then I will know that you come here to spread propaganda or you are too stupid to do your own research on your pov
  
  Ron Paul is the only true conservative that I have seen for quite some time...these so called Republicans that have absconded the administration through the Supreme Court are schills for the Oil industry that has essentially gotten away with raping the taxpayers, while getting subsidized by the very people they raped. Thats somewhat like trying to make a rape victim pay for sex!

• stopmediabias said on Mar 29, 2008....

  Lbno-read the transcript of the resolution that Dems and Repubs agreed on.  WMD's was not the primary reason, there were others.  I know I am biased, no-one gives a shit about my bias.  I was commenting on #6 because it is just plain wrong.  The war for oil claim is silly for many reasons.  #1 if we wanted it we could just buy it or the equivalent from other countries and it would cost a lot less  #2 why are oil prices so high if we have an endless supply in Iraq from pillaging?  #3 The oil fields weren't the primary emphasis when we went in, if we went for oil we would have just surrounded the fields and bombed everything else. 

  If you say "war for oil" in the sense of not letting other rogue countries pillage the place then ya part of the reasons for liberating Iraq was "for oil" but to suggest there is some hidden conspiracy where President Bush is making backroom deals with greedy oil companies is wrong.  I'm out of time, later.

• lfbno7 said on Mar 29, 2008....

  1. If we wanted it we could just buy it. But the point is, who gets the profits?
  
  2. Oil prices are so high because OPEC keeps them high, the oil companies keep them high, and taxes keep them high. If we had a government "for the people" as Lincoln requested, the oil prices would be much lower, OPEC would be challenged, the oil companies would be forced to compete against each other in a free market economy instead of their current illegal price fixing, and our own governments wouldn't be jumping on the bandwagon with such high taxes on it.
  
  3. The oil fields WERE the primary emphasis when we went in. We immediately protected them, while ignoring the museums, the utilities, and the safety of the women in Baghdad.
  
  The main difference between us politically is that while you see clearly that the Democrats suck, I see clearly that both parties suck. We need Lincoln back. Your standards are too low. I know most people like to pick a side, the lesser of two evils, and support it.
  
  Andora makes the important point that if humanitarian considerations had anything to do with our actions, we'd be helping in other places where they need help desperately. We only "help" under certain circumstances. Uncle Sam is not in the charity business.

• oceanwaves1 said on May 23, 2008....

  GrapeKoolaid Well Grape it appears you have opened Pandora's box:  It appears people love to express their views myself included, and I noticed you have comments from some of the same bloggers I have blogged with so let me give you a heads up  some of these bloggers ignor the truth and will not be moved from their imperialistic views because the fact that America is the greatest place on earth should be sufficient reason to them for us to make the entire world think as we do wheather they want to or not.  It actually holds a glimmer of truth, but it is very dangerious because every country that has tried to rule or police the world has used the same logic and gone down in defeat, but as to why we are in Iraq all you have to do is read it in their own words, (Project for a New American Century or PNAC), and they tell us why they are there, but of course some bloggers don't want to hear the truth and constitutional law and moral thinking be dammed. PEACE-DL.

• GrapeKoolaid said on May 23, 2008....

  oceanwaves:  It's funny you should mention PNAC.  My third blog on SoulCast almost two years ago covered this topic.  It's called "The Plans for Hegemony and the Price of Occupation".  Since then, I have pretty much stopped blogging about politics because in a lot of ways, I feel like Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling to deaf ears.  I do delve into political topics every once in a while now, but it's not something that I do often anymore.  Thanks for taking a peek at this post and dropping me a note. 
  
  I'm sure there are things that you and I disagree on, as there are many things that I don't see eye to eye with many here, but the fact that we can discuss it in a civil manner is what I like about this place, you know?  Encountering thinking people once in a while like yourself and others that have commented on this thread makes it all worthwhile, I guess.
  
  The rest of yas:  I'm sorry I let this thread die.  I have to step out right now, but I'll come back to this post sometime soon.  You haven't heard the last of me yet.  (Is that a threat?)  :D
  

• GrapeKoolaid said on May 23, 2008....

  Oh and the link to my third post is here.  Sorry I left that out...  :)

• stopmediabias said on May 24, 2008....

  Lfbno-I think I've argued the oil stuff with you before and I won't even bother continuing.  We will have to agree to disagree.

  "The main difference between us politically is that while you see clearly that the Democrats suck, I see clearly that both parties suck. We need Lincoln back. Your standards are too low. I know most people like to pick a side, the lesser of two evils, and support it."

  I like our political system, one keeps the other in check.  The problem here is Democrats have sold out.  They make policy and statements after reading a headline right off the New York Times.  Look at Murtha accusing those soldiers of cold-blooded murder before any investigation or before he even knew the whole story.  There is also a massive, MASSIVE bunch of free-passes given to Democrats all the time.  Hillary Clinton running against a black man makes a statement to the effect:  "Hardworking white Americans are supporting me in greater numbers."  Let someone right now hear John McCain make a statement like that and see what the media would do with that.  Why hasn't Democrat William Jefferson not been kicked to street or even asked to resign, instead he was voted back in after 90 grand was found in his freezer.   

  Democrats politicize everything far more than Republicans do.  John Kerry with Kyoto, Toro Bora, issues in 2004.  Howard Dean saying Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives.  Grey Davis saying Arnold refused to give drivers licenses to immigrants.  The list is endless and the media lets it all go.  President Bush makes a speech and alludes to the fact that appeasement doesn't work and what do you hear "scandalous attack on Obama!!!!"  This why I'm a conservative.

   

• oceanwaves1 said on May 25, 2008....

  GrapeKoolaid Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War;" The constitution is the rule of law for our land, and if you will look up definition of war you will see it's dealing with nations fighting one another.  So for all you brilliant bloggers out there; are we actually in a war with Iraq?  If yes who declared war  when and for what reason, and let me remind you our legal constitutional defense policy is self defense.  My point in this comment is just to remind everyone America is breaking not only our own law but international law, and if we are going to discuss this let us first determine the parameterizes of the topic:1. Is it a war or invasion and occupation or maybe even a terrorist act 2. Did Congress declare war or some rogue President.  PEACE-DL

• stopmediabias said on May 26, 2008....

  "Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; "

  Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

   

Comment on "My thougts on the Iraq war..."

Currently tagged	politics iraq propagates propaganda My thougts on the Iraq war us america politically correct solutions desire stopmediabias (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously