US Civil War.

Most people in the world get along. Differing cultures, religions, economies, etc. don't change the fundamentals of being human. For example there are common views on murder.

Again, I don't know where to go with this "what history" question. Perhaps, we just do the best we can with the information available.
-----Added 5/9/2008 at 12 : 47 : 52-----
Bush did not change anyone's mind about the Iraq war.

The intel regarding WMD was not the determining reason we invaded Iraq. the reason was because Saddam was a threat.

I don't understand the argument of being against the war, but not wanting to end it because of the troops. That is not logical to me.

You might want to pick up on roachboy's qualifications before you make those kinds of statements.

So you think the US Civil War was based on right vs. wrong? Let me guess why: you think slavery was the sole reason behind the war?

Also, I asked for "several" examples. Some non-US wars would be helpful for your argument... wars without pre-recorded moral superiority that has been passed down through 8th grade and 11th grade high school US History education (and yes, I taught 11th grade history, so I know where the indoctrination comes from).

"Most people in the world get along?" Really.

She served in some areas subject to conflict and violence:

Mother Teresa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ace--we could have this discussion, but i think it'd be a threadjack.
maybe i'll make another thread on the weekend to address it.
or you can.

No. People fight wars for many reasons. Some Southerners fought the war for non-slavery related issues. At the end of the day, the question of slavery had to be resolved.

The Crusades. I think the aggression by the Europeans during these conflicts was wrong.

Yes. Most people love their families, go to work, laugh, dance, sing, etc. We have more in common than we have differences.

I am not sure what you want, it seems whatever, I give you will find something wrong or something missing. My views appear to be very different than yours on these issues.

She also said it was God's will that we build the pipeline. I wonder how she knows what God's will is? It is one thing to say that in your opinion you think God would be pleased if we do something and a whole other thing when you say it is his/her will. I thought God only talked to prophets and television preachers.

I think her religious and political beliefs are pretty clear by now and is what makes her the choice of the religious right, anti-abortion (even in rape and incest cases), book banning, teaching creation in science class, etc.. I don't think we should underestimate those who believe the Bible literally, close to where I live they opened a creation museum and have had to expand the parking lots due to large crowds.

I posted an excerpt from an interview of an extremely authoritive and knowledgable source on this problem of American christian fundementalism, in a post , five hours before this thread was started. Granted.....the problem was not linked to Sarah Palin....she is an nearly irrelevant symptom.... but the interview in my post describes how we got here.....the taking down of the wall between Jesus and our government..... how it hurts us, and the dire consequences that are already taking place because of it.

My post has one response...and the thread has entire 41 views. Must all problems now be framed around the idiot's pick of an even greater idiot?

Yeah, I'll chime on these topics if that thread gets started... I'm stepping into the car in about 2 minutes for a weekend trip away, so will see what's evolved when I get back.

Ace--don't worry, we most likely won't get anywhere with each other's opinions, and that's just par for the course around here. It's also why I need a trip away. :D

Inertia is often a blinding force.

Again.....it was "started"....hours ago.....all you need to do it to react to this:

I thought this was a thread questioning statements by Sarah Palin regarding what influences her decision-making. In the OP, it was in reference to invoking the will of GOD and war.

I read stuff like this:

And it makes me cringe.

Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Yahoo! News

I interrupt this thread to bring you the latest in high-class websites that have been brought to my attention: iwoulddosarahpalin.com!!

Carry on.

wedge politics as usual. if you think palin is a far right nutjob, then it follows that she isn't talking to you, that you are not of the "us" she addresses or appeals to. her rhetoric is not about expanding the existing republican base-it is about mobilizing the christian right machine, the elaborate grass-roots organization based out of churches, now re-interpreted at political gears, which set up van pools and convince the faithful that "god" is a republican. so if you object to palin's belonging to a church that espouses the position that folk who are gay are so because of the sin in their heart and that they can be "cured"--she isn't talking to you. you are therefore the "Other" and should perhaps be alarmed at the possibilities of far right one-dimensional american backwater protestant militants having any hope at all of getting access to anything remotely like the executive branch of the federal government.

this is not about "god" in general, or whether it is acceptable for politico-types to have oligarchy-compatible religious beliefs: this is about a PARTICULAR understand of who this god character is, a PARTICULAR understanding of the bible, a PARTICULAR understanding of the relation between 2000 year old writings and action in the present. this is about extreme right-wing evangelical protestants for the most part--perhaps in some areas working in coalition with extreme right-wing charismatic catholics. this is about the organizational expression of the pentacostalist movement. this is not about christianity as a whole--and the folk who claim otherwise generally allow themselves to be duped by the rhetoric of this particular version of christianity, which claims for itself a monopoly on the category.


but i'll say this again: if it comes down to political machine vs, political machine, these people will win.
never underestimate what the christian coalition has put together over the past 30 years.

if sarah palin freaks you out, take that seriously and become mobilized yourself.

The first visitor comment on that site is-


Umm, which of her daughters gave birth in the past year?

I keep wondering if "God" is just Cheney's nickname. Whenever an insane neocon claims to be getting directives from god, they just mean the veep.

Ratbastid - it really hasnt caught on yet here in the middle east yet exactly who the VP nomination for the republicans really is. i presume the media will catch on soon enough and the tide wil turn. i dont think anyone here wants a war mongerer as president, and the religious rhetoric that comes from Palin is disturbing. its unsettling that is McCain does drop dead, then Palin would have no problem picking up the standard and resuming gods war.

what i also did read from what she said was ' vote for me and god will look after you and get you jobs'.

i have no problem with religious people. i do have a problem with religious fanatics bearing their ideologies on others and manipulating it for their own personal gain!

on the other hand, we have Obama, who as much as i admire (from a celebrity level) doesnt seem to really have all that much for me to want to vote for him as an american.

if i were an american, id be scared shitless on the future of my country.
as a person living in the middle east albeit australian, id be scared shitless of the uncertain future of the region

That's old news, friend.

Voice Of God Revealed To Be Cheney On Intercom | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

* * * * *

I think ultimately the danger with the Neocon approach to this sort of thing is that they tend to gloss over their moral imperative through this sort of pseudo-religious interpretation of what a nation's leader is meant to do in the face of danger. It is an old-fashioned posturing. A kind that I would imagine was performed by leaders from the pre-Modern period. It's misleading and is meant to garner the support from the less sophisticated or ignorant listener.

No one in their right mind (both religious and non-religious) sees this kind of thing and thinks, Hey, yeah, God [or some ambiguous moral authority] does want us, America, to carry out these things against our enemies. Bullshit. Even from a religious point of view this is tragically Old Testament.

It's deplorable that any politician from a nation as wealthy, influential, and powerful as the U.S. would use this kind of language in public, especially when it's intentional and directed. This is outright manipulative and one of the worst kinds of rhetoric.

Then there's that pesky separation of church and state issue....

I'm not saying this Palin issue from the OP is a major problem, but what is a problem is that we need to be keeping tabs on what is being said in public to the public when it comes to this sort of thing. America is still a very religious nation.

Palin: "Iraq war is a task that is from God."

So... which magical superhero is she talking about?

(watches at US Army switches from IBAs to suicide bomber belts)

As a US citizen sometimes it's odd living and interacting with another culture. My neighbor lady, who was thrilled when a woman was picked to be a VP nominee, was at my door early this morning. She was holding a newspaper. She told me there must be something wrong with the translation in her paper. Of course my ability to read and comprehend Spanish is extremely limited. She seemed pretty worked up and pointed to the paper and said "this paper says the woman who will be VPOTUS believes God told her to build a pipeline and that she should support the wars in the middle east." After I explained that the woman in question has a good chance to be the VP it's not a done deal. It will either be her or Joe Biden, an election will decide. We sat at my table and over coffee went point by point through her paper. She read and translated the article and I found google and yahoo sources in English to compare. Basically we found articles where Palin stated the wars and the pipeline were all "part of God's plans." She said "I thought once Bush was gone the world would be done with all this crazy "God told me to do it crap." I reminded her she was thrilled about Palin just a few days ago. She said "Yes, but that was before I found out she's a crazy person."

+ 5 points for catching that.

I guess you could consider the Dalai Lama a dangerous religious fanatical leader too.

Dude. Comon. :no:

"You guess"? What do you mean by that, exactly?

I hardly think the actions and decisions of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile are remotely similar to those we see being made in Iraq.

The only thing dangerous about him is that he brings to light the injustices of a communist militaristic regime's expansionist policies. And the only thing fanatic about him is his unwavering drive to end war and suffering. Except I don't find that quite unreasonable. Difficult, yes.

The thing to remember about the former Tibetan government is that it had as an education budget—proportionately—what the U.S. currently has as a military budget. In hindsight maybe that would explain part of the problem with China and Tibet...not enough military...but Tibet isn't exactly the most accommodating place when it comes to standing armies.

Only if you're China.

Fanatic-

A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.



The Dalai Lama doesn't seem like an unreasoning person to me.

i have a feeling that the dalai lama will become an icon of pop culture much the same way that che guevara has become a symbol of resistance.

both are freedom fighters. are both fanatics?

i think palin and che would be... would the dalai lama also fit this category?

Is Jeremiah Wright a fanatic? What influence does he have on Obama's decision making? This has been churned over and over. If the Obama/Wright connection does not worry the Palin objectors, then are we talking about partisan hypocracy rather than heart-felt concern regarding someone's "fanatical ideology"?.

In the one case the candidate listened to a fanatic then separated himself and clearly stated I do not believe these things.

In the other case the fanatic is the candidate.

gee, otto, where's all the obsessive repetition about palin's membership in a church that imagines gay folk can be "converted" from being gay?

o wait: i know.
it's that there are two weights, so there are two measures.


make your line consistent or abandon it.

What are my inconsistencies? I'll be happy to clarify your misrepresentation of my point.

i thought you were "interested" in church affiliations as a Problem and so would be "interested" in them across the board.
that way, you would not yourself be playing some tedious partisan game to complain about tedious partisan games.

Che is a terrorist monster. Che is a symbol of terrorism/fascism and now, thanks to all those t-shirts etc, he is a symbol of capitalism.

The Dalai Lama is a mixed bag. I like the fellow but sometimes he is not the saint the west so eagerly believes.

But you are right in one regard. Che, Dalai Lama are indeed pop icons like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Castro et al. I'm waiting for the Warhol collage of all of them.

uh first of all i don't know anywhere outside the most fever-dream addled quadrants of the american ultra-right that a single thing you said about che guevara is right, jorgelito. you obviously know nothing about the guy. guevara was alot of things, and there were problems with and about some of those things--but not one of them is even close to the attributes you list.

the iconography is bothersome, an indication of the hollowing-out of the past and it's replacement with a superficial duplicate. but at the same time, the famous image of che is a cool image.

If peter piper picked a peck of pickl... what are you talking about?

Che ... geez ... a.k.a. psycho racist murdering wing-nut?

otto:

you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. debating you about che guevara is of no interest.

so how about we keep this televisual and easy. why don't you answer the question i posed to you earlier?

Thanks for posting this so I didn't have to.

I beg to differ. Che was a genocidal murderer, a maniac of epic proportions. I find it repulsive that thousands of naive white liberal college students adopt his image as a symbol of...whatever it is they think he stands for. Cool image? About as cool an image as Hitler or Mao. And please, stop talking down to me and condescend to me. If you step off your high horse pedestal for a minute, perhaps you could see the truth.

Che incited revolution against what had become oligarchy from extreme class separation. A lot of people were hurt of killed, but what he stood for wasn't that bad. The maniac thing is wrong, though, Jorg. Seriously.

It's all a matter of perspective. One man's freedom fighter is anothers terrorist. Right now I bet if you did a survey you'd find more people world wide consider Bush Jr. a terrorist and a war criminal then consider him a force or voice for democracy.