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

I find this kind of talk extremely disturbing, especially when coming from a potential Vice President...

The rest of this article can be found here: Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Yahoo! News

If you believe in the Christian God, how can you even think that He is in favor of a war that was founded upon so much misinformation, if not upon outright lies? How can you continue to support a war, and continue to believe that it is God's will, when the leaders of that war condone torture, and the war itself has been exposed to be rife with corporate favortism, profiteering, and corruption? If God is with us, in this war, then why is our nation having to go so deeply into debt to finance it, borrowing massive amounts of money from foreign nations who are out fierce competitors and may even someday be opposed against us? If this is God's will and a just cause, why are we having to recycle our troops, again and again, pushing them past the brink of mental/emotional exhaustion and bringing great anguish upon themselves and their families? (No wonder, suicide among our troops is at an all-time high.)

And if you don't believe in the Christian God – or in any God, for that matter – then Palin's words and beliefs should be even more disturbing, to you.

I believe in God and I hate it when people claim something is God's will. The bible is clear, if you say something is from God and it is not then it is from Satin. When the religious nuts get up and say something will happen because God wills it and it doesn't I always wonder if they think about this verse.... I know their listeners don't.

I find this kind of talk extremely disturbing, especially when coming from a potential President...

What's the verse?

'm not challenging you here, I'm just curious and would like to read it.

Religion has no place in politics. Any time Christian God is brought up, it is extremely disturbing.

Why do you say that? You don't want a president that guards against pride and despair and has the wisdom to do what is right and just?

Or are you simply stating that you expect a president of the United States to be an atheist as a requirement?

Well, it's even worse in the context of what she's actually TALKING ABOUT.

To the Muslim residents of the middle east, suggestions that Western incursion into their lands and sovereignty is the divine will of a Christian god is a direct reference to the Crusades, and is deeply deeply offensive. This kind of talk is directly inflammatory, and she doesn't even know it.

That a President of the U.S. is a believer in God, and him wanting to be an instrument of God's will, is nothing new. There have been plenty of Presidents like that, throughout this nation's history. (Why, our very first President was like that.)

So, I don't find it disturbing just because a President or a Presidential candidate believes in God and wants to do His will. No, my argument here is more manifold than that.

I do like the first parts of Obama's prayer: "Forgive me my sins and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just."

I'm trying to figure out why. Too humble?

Bush took his will and wrapped it in God-talk. That's a different thing.

The AP reports the Palin quote as "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
This quote starts in Palin's mid-sentence. The AP piece is a hatchet job and is intended to make Gov. Palin a scary religious nut.

Here's Palin's actual quote:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Even the leftwing Huffington Post has the entire quote in context and the actual video. See the video with the quote in context at Palin's Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview. The money part runs from about 5:30 to 6:15.

Let the slime fest begin.:no:

The insurgents fighting back in Iraq and Afghanistan are saying similar things to what Palin has said here.

EDIT:
Well, then. So it is.

I'll reread the Orwell quotation in my signature....

I don't believe that at all... I just want to illustrate how easily we can escalate such claims or false perceptions with context biased factoids and distortions. I bet that if inclined, I could find all sorts of eye-brow raising religious "news" on any of these nominees.

Fair enough. I simply found your reaction to the Obama snippet to be unjustly reactionary given the context (or lack thereof). Palin was at least contextualized to be speaking about the Iraq War. Obama, on the other hand, was at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. A bit different, no?

Or were you just making a point? (Re: biased factoids and distortions.)

Even with the entire quote, I do not feel a bit less disturbed. Palin was not exhorting her audience to pray for insight and wisdom, to know whether or not the Iraq war is God's plan. No, she was exhorting them to pray that the Iraq war is God's plan.

That, my friends, is the exhortations of fanaticism.

so is the idea that because, for whatever reasons, this nitwit discourse referring to "god" or "special missions" from the Commander of the Divine Spaceship is an element in the degenerate field of american political discourse, then no use of it is of any more or less weight than any other?

isn't that to simply exclude sarah palin's actual positions from consideration, to reduce her to just another pronoun at the beginning of a sentence?

because if you don't do that, then the comparison to obama makes no sense.

Yes... let's not forget Jeremiah Wright. Unfortunate business, but there it was.

the fact that the Muslim god and the Christian god are one and the same leads me to believe that Western incursion is more of a power play based on economics and spheres of control, rather than one-up-gods-ship. Same goes for the crusades of yore.

Perhaps it does not matter that the "word of God" is a persons support of a war but the underlying principle that leads them to the support of the war. Both sides of a conflict can use the "word of God" as support for war, but what we really need is to take the next step and dig a bit deeper to understand the principles leading to the support of the war. So, if one group believes that God wants a certain other groups of people removed from the face of the earth or converted, and then another group believes that God wants people to live in freedom and that the strong is obligated to protect the weak - perhaps even those that don't believe there is a God could make a determination on which group is right and which group wrong if the two groups are engaged in a war.

IMO, a person of faith in the WH is, for the most part, a good thing. The power is enormous and remaining grounded is essential.

It is when that person uses that faith, rather than facts on the ground or the geopolitically reality, that it becomes dangerous:
Of course, the WH denied such conversation ever took place and we will never know for sure.

But the possibility of developing and implementing such a foreign policy based on the word of God is frightening.

This is such an extreme over-simplification of the whole situation (not to mention being fervently biased in one direction), I don't even know where to start--or whether I really want to, knowing that absolutely zero that I say will be actually heard and considered, other than to look for something to exploit in my answer.

Don't get me wrong--I am not on either side of this war--but you simply cannot take thousands of years of history and politics and write a nice little sentence to boil it all down to make sense with one particular worldview. No.

This exchange with Bob Woodward in his book "Plan of Attack" is marginally better:

Nothing short of a literal burning bush, parting of the sea, and pillar of fire should lead one into believing that a war – a war, resulting in death and suffering on a massive scale! – is God's will. In other words: a still, quiet voice in the back of your mind, and the belief that it's God talking to you, shouldn't be nearly enough to lead you into waging a war – especially if you and your allies somehow have vested interests in waging that war.

No, if you're a political leader and you're exhorting to me that it's God's will that we go to war, and that you are God's instrument in this matter, you'd better damn well have some miraclous, world shaking, irrefutable evidence to back your exhortations. Otherwise, leave God and His will out of anything you say about the matter.

Are you presenting Palin's statement to illustrate your concern for leaders that may employ their religious beliefs when making critical decisions regarding war or policy?

otto....again, its using religious beliefs, rather than facts on the ground or the geopolitics of the day, to make a policy decision.

The bible is not a foreign policy document.

I understand, but you know where this is going.

When you say "simplification of the whole situation", I doubt you understand my point. My comment was not related to a specific situation, but the nature of most wars in human history. Generally there is an aggressor who wants to remove a group of people from existence or convert them (to whatever - religion, political, way of life, economic, forced labor, etc) and you have another side fighting for freedom, security, the weak. There have been conflicts between parties with the same motive of removing the other group from the face of the earth, but generally history shows there was a right and a wrong, at least measured by our common moral standards.
-----Added 5/9/2008 at 11 : 56 : 59-----
So, what was the point?

I am concerned about religious fanatics and zealots involved in politics, yes. But I am even more concerned about political leaders whose true motives and machinations are cloaked in religious beliefs and posturings.

If you do things (or avoid doing things) based on your principles, what difference does it make it you attribute your principles to God, a little invisible man on your shoulder, or a rag doll in your closet. The point is to understand your guiding principles.
-----Added 5/9/2008 at 12 : 04 : 36-----
What about the people like Mother Teresa who felt she had an obligation from God to help people? Is she a religious fanatic? How do you measure it? Everyone has some basis upon which they make moral or value decisions, for those who don't use their religious teachings, what do they use? why is what they use better or worse than the use of religion?

IMO, a political leader who does not balance his/her ideology or guiding principles with the facts is dangerous.

I believe that has been the case with Bush and would be with Palin.

Mother Teresa was not a political leader.

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 (New International Version)

So here it says that if someone claims a prophesy that is not true then they are a false prophet. Look up what the bible says about false prophets and you will see that it is not very generous to them.

The difference, of course, is when you try to convice other people of your principles, or even worse, force your principles upon them. When doing so, it's one thing to say, "And these principles of mine are founded upon my own learnings and understandings," and another thing entirely to say "And these principles of mine were given from God, and it is His will that you follow them as well." All the more so, when we're talking about something as world shaking as engaging in a full-scale war.

Whether or not Mother Teresa was a religious fanatic is beside the point. Mother Teresa saying God called upon her, personally, to live a life of servitude, to help out the poor and the wretched, is a HUGE difference from President George W. Bush saying God called upon him to lead the nation and its allies into a bloody war in Iraq.

Utilization of factual information is or can be a guiding principle.

Most reasonable people don't follow leaders for very long if facts don't support the message. Moses leading his people wondering in the desert may have been an exception.

I don't understand what you mean here.

Your view of political leadership differs from mine. Political leaders are not always those that have the title or those who are in an elected office.

I understand completely, that's why I ask for caution in a rush to judgment on this issue. Obama recently suffered through the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal... and for the most part it has subsided. But for the very reasons you state regarding motives and machinations, there is a big can of worms just waiting to be re-opened by the opposition regarding Obama's judgment. Is it being influenced by his church doctrine, his spiritual leader, and Black Liberation Theology... or perhaps his involvement with William Ayers, Public Allies, and the teachings of Saul Alinsky?

There is a thread on TFP Politics entitled Rev Jeremiah Wright - or WRONG? that thoroughly covered similar concerns in all the most painful ways. I'd hate to see this discussion fall down that path.

1) Excluding WWII (since we can agree on that), can you give me at least several examples of wars with an unquestionable distinction of right vs. wrong?

2) What "common moral standards" are you referring to? I know of many, many different moral standards across the world, and even within the singular boundary of the United States... and even just a handful of them would beg to differ with you on what constitutes their "common moral standard."

2) What "history" do you refer to? The one written by the winners or the losers (to keep it simple)? It's really just not that simple to talk about what "history" shows anyone, without providing at least the author, the date, the context in which that history was written, because all of those things affect "history" as it is written and interpreted. People who study "history" professionally know this--they get PhD's in it--and they still don't always know what "history" shows us--it's just too damn subjective, especially when it comes down to moral issues of "right" vs. "wrong."

ace:

i'd go further than abaya on the last point.

"history" shows nothing.
what histories show is what the judgments of the people who gather, organize and interpret information about the past.
"history" is not a morality play.
try again.

Seriously. Last I recall, Mother Teresa didn't have anyone killed/sent to kill others as a result of her belief in God.

If I can change a person's core beliefs or their guiding principles - they deserve what they get. Bush could not convince me to support a war that I thought was wrong. He can't do it to you. why do you assume he can do it to others?


I disagree. I believe there is right and wrong. I believe some are predisposed to do what Mother Teresa did and others are predisposed to fight, and if the fight is against evil then it is good.
-----Added 5/9/2008 at 12 : 32 : 59-----
People fought and people died so that she had the opportunity to do what she did. She helped people who would "fight" in their own ways for what was right. I think she probably understood those concepts and may have prayed to God to give those people guidance.

That would make a good screenplay.
-----Added 5/9/2008 at 12 : 35 : 52-----
What facts are you basing these statements on?

I'd still like to hear your answer to my previous questions.

I am sorry, but if you don't think knowledge of the past is real, "shows" us, gives us an opportunity not to repeat errors, I don't know what to say. I study history, I try to understand it, I try to learn from it, I try to apply the lessons from history. If I am unique in that regard, the so be it.

Exhibit A: The re-election of George W. Bush and his administration, in 2004.

Even then, the growing concensus (at least, among the inquiring and the informed) was that the Iraq War was founded on misinformation, and that the war was perhaps wrong. But an awful lot of people who re-elected Bush disregarded all that and continued to support the Bush administration and its war, while others who re-elected him thought along the lines of, "Well, I disagree with this war, but I continue to support our troops, and I believe Bush is the one who can get us out of this mess."

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.

Wow. That's just a little hyperbolic, no?

Well, I'd prefer my revolutions conducted in the mould of Gandhi rather than the some of the transcendent, violent prescriptions of Franz Fanon (a la Che).

Che as genocidal maniac - No. Just no.
Che as maniac - Absolutely not, you need to read something he wrote, rather than what is wrote about him.
Che in comparison to Hitler or Mao - Baseless as well as ridiculous.

Che used violence as PART of what he was part of building and wanting for humanity. Not genocidal, maniacal violence, but the using of arms to further political objectives.

It shouldn't take you too long to think of some of your heroes who did likewise.

Also, as an aside, you might like to ponder on whether the US coup against the Arbenz government in 1954 directly led to the galvanizing and motivating of a young Che into the revolutionary that much of the world embraces as a hero - albeit flawed.

Blowback. I wonder what's coming down the line now?

Directed in the Holy name of Jesus and The Lord.

Thanks for saying this first.

Perhaps, but it depends on your perspective really.
-----Added 9/9/2008 at 12 : 56 : 43-----
I agree. In regards to George Bush, I think it would be fair to study whether he was a terrorist and war criminal or a voice for democracy.

But in regards to Che, that was my point. I thought it was ridiculous the way people are tossing his salad around here without regard to his atrocious history. His very image offends me in the same manner that Mao, Hitler et al offend me.
-----Added 9/9/2008 at 01 : 04 : 49-----
I respectfully disagree. Che murdered natives, women and children indiscriminately. I don't buy the "Che used violence as PART of what he was part of building and wanting for humanity. Not genocidal, maniacal violence, but the using of arms to further political objectives." His violence was still wrong and criminal in my opinion. He's no better than Osama et al in that regard. Those guys do the same thing. Che used violence in the "Don't agree with me, then die" manner.

Some of my heroes like MLK Jr, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa are nowhere near similar to Che. Maybe I missed your point there?

In any event, I think clearly Che leaves a lot to be desired.
-----Added 9/9/2008 at 01 : 10 : 04-----
Yes, I agree, me too.

I don't understand this portion of your post.

roachboy, I suspect the reaction you provoked.....yes, provoked....happened because, through no fault of your own..... you inserted your opinions and briedly blocked the "tractor beam", from the intended target of "the Mighty Wurlitzer".

Unless you live in an area like I live in....AND listen to at least an hour each day of conservative, evangelicized Salem Comm. "talk" radio, you probably are not conscious of the CONSTANT reinforcement a significant protion of the country receives each and every day....."liberal Hollywood elite.... extreme left democrat party.... here in the greatest country on god's green earth..... liberals hate america and christian values, we are defending the scanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, Bush will be regarded as one of the greatest presidents....."

Michelle Malkin, as hard as it is for us to believe....has one of the most popular weblogs on the internet.....#3, according to these rankings...... here are three examples of her campaign against "Che", linking him to Obama and Hollywood "elite". Then there is a bigger list of her commentaries which include "Che"...... and, from what we see, it works.... it's about linking "liberals" to "the otther", the demon, "Che" !

They spew this "stuff", as I'd imagine batshit crazy people would, roachboy, and they win elections.... It's almost as if they've convinced themselves "Che" was a more brutal terrorist and villainous thug than....Menachem Begin.

I think the point about Che is that yes, he used violence. But to describe him in the terms you have used seems a bit over the top. Would you describe George Bush and his administration in those terms? Their regime change in Iraq is not all that different when it gets down to it.

I think that's a fair point. I would disagree that it is necessarily over the top though. It all depends on who you ask. The damage that Che and Fidel wrought on the continent was so severe, I'm sure there are many who do not regard Che as a "hero".

In regards to George Bush: It's too early or too close to tell at this point. I think in 20 years or so, when we look back, we will be able to analyze and come to some sort of conclusion better. My guess is that history will not look favorably upon George Bush or his administration but on the other hand, there will be some sort of romanticisation of his "legacy" as well. I think you may be too kind to GW. In addition to Iraq, there is the Guantanamo debacle, Afghanistan campaign, poor handling of the economy, strained relations with our allies and others, Axis of Evil, etc... Give it some time. We will be able to put things into perspective. Cheney, Rove, maybe even poor Condi will also be included in that judgment. For better or worse.

Only time will tell.

Blowback - The unintended consequences to friendly forces following an action upon an enemy.

i.e. The US overthrows the democratically elected, leftist Arbenz government of Guatemala in 1954 where Che happens to be at that time. Before the coup, Che is looking to further his medical career, with a side interest in revolution. After the coup, Che is fully committed to a productive, anti-colonial revolutionary career. That US empire more than most.

If the US hadn't gone and done the bidding of United Fruit by reinstating their (neo-)colonialist grip over Guatemala via a coup, would one of the the most famous men who described the what, how, where, when and why of taking on US imperialism - not to mention inspiration - ... would Che have even become a revolutionary?

Debatable.

As for wondering what is coming down the line now... well, where to start.

The US is currently at war in bloody wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where bombing civilians, women and children have been a motif.
Threatening war against Iran.
Heavily posturing against and provoking Russia. (Issues with Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, The Baltic States, the rest of central asia, oil, etc)
Props up economically, supplies militarily and protects Israel diplomatically.
Still has massive numbers of troops deployed in South Korea and Japan, despite massive protests.
Has recently had a coup succeed only to fail within days in Venezuela.
Is meddling in the politics of Bolivia to try and provoke secession by - surprise, surprise - the oil rich elements of the country.
Colombia. Props up economically, protects diplomatically, supplies militarily and praises internationally what is known to be a Failed State. It isn't in the US-sponsored top 10 anymore, but really...

The list goes on.

A coup sparked Che.
Previous Afghani and Saudi adventures sparked Bin Laden.

Iraq is a nightmare, it could easily result in attacks on "The Homeland" down the line. Certain people have been only too happy to recruit Jesus into their war, hence, down the line, potential blowback in the Holy name of Jesus.

Ah ok, got it. Thanks for the clarification.

jorgelito: I would agree that "romanticizing" and "commodifying" Che is a bit odd (and in the latter case, highly ironic). But I would say that about most historical figures.

When I was asking if a comparison can be made to George Bush and his Admin, I was really just asking about the ends and the means part of the equation rather than the pop culture legacy.

That said, I can certainly see why a certain left leaning crowd might view Che with misty eyes. He presents a very heroic figure... an intellectual and a doctor who not only talked but took action. Yes, he was a guerrilla warrior who killed people (it's difficult to call him a terrorist as he largely fought against soldiers). But you can also argue that he was an idealist and a nation builder -- someone who viewed the colonial, imperial and corporatist dictatorships of Latin America and Africa as something that could only be overthrown through armed struggle.

It's the funny thing about most historical figures, they are never black and white. Some of them did some pretty awful things.

For me, Che stands as someone who stands firm against the worst aspects of US imperialism. It's also important to remember that he was a man of his time. I would like to think that if he were alive today he would be working with the democratically elected governments of Latin America that are currently struggling to rid themselves of decades of negative US influence (see: Boliva, Argentian, Venezuela, etc.).

Yes... the iron fist of the evil U.S. Empire. :shakehead: U. S. Imperialism... another fashionable cliché. Wears well with Ché t-shirts, blogging, and driving a Prius. Rage against the machine! ... dude.

Care to set out, maybe in another thread, how you fit US aims, actions and modern history into a world view that doesn't include "US Imperialism"?

It's easy to mock, shake your head, etc, but I really can't see how anyone can look at history and the current state of affairs and judge the US as anything but an imperialist power, selfishly, ruthlessly abusing it's dominant or hegemonic power crush other views on how life can be lived, or who should be telling them what to do.

Please, show me the error of my ways.

thanks host--i didn't know about the new revisionist use values being appended to che by the right-machine. this now makes some sense as another corridor in the funhouse of political/politicized signifiers which are always available to live through should reality get to be a burden.

jorgelito---i have no particularly nostalgic ideas about che guevara--but you don't need to be attached to find the ongoing conservative revision of the past to be disturbing.

watch chris marker's "le fond de l'air est rouge"

Fond de l'air est rouge, Le (1977)

for a crash introduction to the history that you've obviously been lied to about.
without an assumption that we're talking about the same thing, no discussion is possible.

=======================

gee otto---> there can't be an american empire or any problems attending neoliberalism if you don't look, if you dismiss any criticism as "fashionable"
there's nothing but "america-bashing" if you don't look, if you do no research, if you watch tv.

there's more going on with you that this---what's the point of going one-dimensional, particularly when you know that you're in a position you can't defend?

I know it sounds cliché but if you read your Latin American history, it's there. Off the top of my head...

Guatamala 1954 - the US supports and funds the overthrow the democratically elected government of President Jacobo Arbenz on the orders of the United Fruit Company

Brazil 1964 - the US supports and funds the overthrow the democratically elected government of President Joao Goulart

Chilean Coup of 1973 - the US supports and funds the overthrow of the democratically elected Salvador Allende government.

Argentinian Coup of 1976 - the US supports and funds the overthrow of the democratically elected Peron government (LINK)

Venezuela 2002 attempted coup - the supports and funds the attempted coup of the democratically elected Hugo Chavez government.

You will note that each of these governments is left leaning (to various degrees). Most were pretty much aiming for the type of "socialism" that is practised in Scandinavia. This was deemed counter to US interests.

The above list is a sample from a much larger list... and if you just poke below the surface you find the US supporting and training the people behind these coups in everything from Economics and Torture to Massive Loans and Counter-Insurgency.

I am sorry that it has become a cliche but the mainstream American view of history is funny that way.

Watch out, America's hat, or Canada's basement will overthrow whoever wins in October.

Among the latin doings, count Cuba pre-Fidel among them. Cuba was rife with American criminal activity, aided by the American government. We freaking planned an execution gone wrong in order to return Cuba to the hands of mobsters.

i coulda have sworn that you were talking about ayman al zawahiri

otto, if it's not about objecting to the motives related to class stratified power and wealth, and the cluelessness that would motivate people to vote for the grandson and great-grandson of George Herbert Walker and Samuel P. Bush, what is it about, supporting it, apologizing for it, altering history, sweeping it under the rug?

One only need to examine the history of the School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) to understand a little about US colonialism in Latin America...particularly to prop up right leaning regimes...and how it created an environment for "revolutionaries" to thrive:

I expect someone to say...consider the source...SOA Watch has agenda..blah blah blah...

But some of the nastiest goverment officials in Latin America are graduates of the School of the Americas.

the contemporary neo-cons are the direct descendents of the fine people who brought you the school of the americas, who brought you right-wing paramilitary death squads (by training them) who preferred to support fascist and fascisant regimes in latin america to anything remotely progressive, even social-democracy--anything that would have redistributed wealth and land, anything that would have disrupted the colonial power structure that the americans have worked to maintain in the interest of "anti-communism" since world war 2, in the interest of the colonial project set into motion by the "monroe doctrine"---the contemporary neo-con movement is the pure excresence of the national security state, the representatives of the direction along which the united states turned itself into everything it claimed to oppose, setting itself up as an enemy of democracy and ally of oppression and exploitation. the school of the americas is just one of those places that allows you to walk through the mirror, shift from living inside the consumer-bubble that is "the amurican way of life" and start to think about what that way of life has cost others, the extent to which the "amurican way of life" is predicated on exporting of the worst features of american capitalism--from the plantation system (pace united fruit) through to the "free trade zones" particular to globalization. the neo-cons are the pure excresence of this trajectory within the history of the united states. threatened by the unravelling of the cold war that enabled them to flourish, by the undermining of the rationale for the vast expenditures on military equipment, the vast expenditures on "security systems," by the undermining of the rationale for the entire national-security state, this class fraction developed an alliance with the populist-reactionary politics of the american extreme right beginning in the middle 1970s and working steadily since. the outline of this history is well-known, obvious in a way to anyone who looks.



same people, same ideology, different rhetoric.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/

otto....recent US history is littered with foreign policy failures that propped up right wing governments- Batista in Cuba, the Shah in Iran - currently Uribe in Colombia.

Or other non-democratic regimes that the current administration buddies up to- most notably. the house of Saud. Combine that with attempts to characterize current foreign policies in religious terms as "righteous" or a "task from God" and you create a breeding ground for anti-Americanism.