Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Phil Byler

The Horribly Misconceived, Deceitful Overture on the Iraq War Passed By The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA

68 Comments
Friday, July, 11, 2008 1:03 PM Jan@Oasis writes:

I Agree!

Mr. Byler, you are so right. I was raised a Presbyterian, my parents and grandparents--my whole family--were Presbyterians. They are all spinning in their graves, I am sure, at the violent lurch to the left by this body. How did the loony left take over so many mainstream Protestant churches? A mystery to me, and a terrible shame.--Jan from Oasis
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 10:06 AM caday5 writes:

I disagree

I comment the 218th GA for its stand. Currently, American policies are based on begging the question of our own innocence. As a result, we take our own transgressions for granted while taking exception at the faults of others. Quite simply, American Christianity cannot afford to stand by while its political leaders act without accountability without losing its members to another gospel--that gospel would be the gospel of American exceptionalism. The Christian Gospel states that all have sinned and that all will be judged by the same standard. That is not the message of American exceptionalism
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 10:50 AM Phil Byler writes:

There You Go Again, caday

There you go again, caday, trying to misuse the Christian gospel as a cover for hard core left wing America-hating politics that is a perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What my post discusses is how horribly misconceived and deceitful the 218th General Assembly Iraq Overture is, and all you offer up in response is mumo jumbo about the sinfulness of America while showing,among other things, utter disregard for the evil of the radical Islamists and that we removed a brutal dictator and allowed to Iraqi people to adopt democratically a written Constitution and democratically elect its government. Take a clue, caday: I have two sons who are good men and who are in the battle with the radical jihadists for a just cause. You, on the other hand, are utterly lost.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 2:15 PM caday5 writes:

Phil

I thought you could do better than to put me down and exalt yourself. If you are going to say that I am misusing the Gospel, be specific. If you don't believe that America is that sinful, then account for our genocide of the American Indians, the slavery of blacks and persecution of minorities, wars for financial gain such as those listed by former Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the lies we used to expand the Vietnam war and the number of Vietnamese we killed, and the lies that used to facilitate the invasion of Iraq. BTW, did you know that many of those who are fighting our troops are simply against our occupation.

There are other American actions you can account for such as coups in Iran ('53), Guatamala ('54), Greece ('67), and Chile ('73) where the replacement gov'ts were run by dictators.

Tell me how I am misusing Jesus' parable of the two men praying and why that does not apply to us?

The association of American Patriotism with the Gospel is syncretic at best. There is no pride that is condoned in the Bible and in fact pride is seen as being antithetical to both faith (Romans 3) and the love of God (I John 2:16). Our preference for ruling rather than serving is contrary to what Jesus said after the mother of the 2 sons of Zebedee asked for seats of honor for her sons.

Brief statements denouncing what I have said are inadequate here and I do want to hear your side.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 2:48 PM Phil Byler writes:

You Are The One Who Needs To Be Specific

Excuse me, caday, but it ia]s you who need to be specific. I went through the 218th General Assembly Iraq Overture point by point to show how horribly misconceived and deceitful it was. You do not respond to my post by examining what I discussed at length on each point. No, you go off with some general assertions and some references that quite frankly have no application at all.

Try this: go paragraph by paragraph in my original post and see if you cn say anything that is relevant and that concerns the point. Saying America is a bad country because of supposed events 35 to 50 years ago in Iran or Guatemala and ignoring the evil of the radical jihadists today is off the wall.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 3:55 PM caday5 writes:

Or because in 2003,

we invaded Iraq under false pretenses with false promises. The false pretenses have been well-documented. The false promise is Iraqi Freedom but currently, our oil companies with the help of the state dept are negotiating for no-bid oil contracts from the Iraqi oil minister against the wishes of the Iraqi people and its parliament.

What I pointed out 35-50 years ago, has been a steady pattern of behavior for all of our existence.
To keep current, it was former economic hitman, John Perkins, who accurately described the reason for our invasion of Iraq. That is because Saddamn did not use American contractors to rebuild his country from the first persian gulf war. Those no bid contracts just mentioned as well as the contractor corruption during the CPA era and the current contractors' contracts indicate that what he said was true.

Now for your points, point #1 is well contested. The downturn in violence can be due to more than just the surge. First, you have 4.7 million displaced Iraqis and up to 1.3 million dead. In addition, the Iraqis never liked Al-Qaeda and the Sunnis more actively opposed them when we funded and armed their militias. The surge itself did little as testified by journalists on the ground.

Point #2, while we rightly complain about Saddamn's resistance to the international community and the UN resolutions, Israel has thumbed its nose at far more resolutions. In addition, we went in there to occupy even under Obama. He is only offering to withdraw combat troops, but other troops and our mercenary contractors will still remain in the country. Malaki has been asking for our withdrawal since November of 2006 and in 2005, 80% of the Iraqi people wanted us to leave. It is funny that while citing Feith, you forget Greenspan, Clarke, and O'Neil who also said why we went to war in Iraq. Fieth's explanation is veneer to make the invasion morally marketable to the masses.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 4:01 PM caday5 writes:

Points 3 and 4

CO is important because the Army is now facing a desertion problem and an increasing number of soldiers are opposed to the occupation. In addition, the Army is facing high numbers of suicides.

Point 4 is most valid. If the US went by international law, we would not have seen the catastrophic Iraqi losses (mentioned in the previous posts) as well as a spike in international terrorism cited by the State Department and the 2006 report by Bergen and Cruickshank. In addition, it was the US and its disregard for international law, law including the UN charter and the Nuremberg Principles, that castrated the UN. You confuse objection to US policy with worthlessness. Maybe it is our policies that are worse than worthless, they are detrimental. We now have set an international precedent where countries no longer need to use due process in filing complaints, they only need to use force.

The problem here, our reliance on brute force is bankrupting our country and we will soon see other countries surpass us while brute force is still the international precedent

Should I wait to go onto points #5 & 6
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 7:14 PM Phil Byler writes:

You Are So Wrong, caday

You are so wrong in repeating America-hating false left wing arguments about the Iraq invasion. Congress, with both Republicans and Democrats voting for the authorization, authorized President Bush to ivade Iraq and remove Saddam from power, which implemented the national act signed by Bill Clinton in 1998 stating that removeal of Saddam was U.S. policy. All members of Congress had access to the intelligence report that was the basis for the invasion. Saddam was in violation of 17 U.N. arms resolutions and was determined to develop weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was supporting terrorism, allowing terrorist training camps to operate and paying suicied ombers. President Bush, in announcing the invasion decision, said that Saddam was not yet an imminent threat but could not be allowed to become so. If you failed to notice, 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium was recently removed from Iraq, which was Saddam's cache, and the New York Times in late 2006 pulished Saddam government documents that indicated that in 2003 Saddam was only abut a year away from having the bomb. Saddam had used one form of WMD, nerve gas, against the Kurds killing thousands. Saddam had materials to make chemical weapons. He was engaged int he Oil for Food scandal at the U.N. to be free of weapons inspections and thus able to make those WMDs. Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada siad that Saddam in fact already had WMDs before the invasion, that Saddam moved then to Syria right before the invasion. you have to take the position that the world would be a better place if Sadam were still in power instead of the democracy now operating. That is absurdly stupid.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 7:23 PM Phil Byler writes:

Desertion? How pathetic of you

You left wingers are deluding yourselves badly if you thnk there is a desertion prolem and that there is an increasing opposition to the American military presence. The opposite is true. Re-enlistment rates are very high, morale is even higher and the Iraqi people support the Americans and have turned against al Qaeda in Iraq. We have won or are on the verge of winning.

You mind is stuck in old anti-Vietnam War diatribes that have no relation to the present situation except as to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the Left.

By the way, my older son is a U.S. Army Captain who earned a Bronze Star and Valor Medal during his 15 months as infantry platoon leader in Iraq, and my younger son is U.S. Marines Second Lieutenant. They laugh at your stupidity, and I am sorry, but it is stupidity.

Both the 218th General Assembly Iraq Overture and you are out of touch with reality in attempting to perpetrate what is a form of treason in undercutting the American military in a field of battle.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 8:01 PM caday5 writes:

Phil

Actually it was not proven that Iraq was in violation of all of those resolutions. That is why we had UN inspectors on the ground who were requesting more time to fulfill their mission. After no weapons were found after our invasion, it was the opinion of the head inspector that Iraq had demolished most of their weapons in 1991.

BTW, the Oil for food program was designed to punish not provide for the Iraqi people. This is well-documented in Hans Von Sponeck's book about the Oil for food program and the sanctions. In addition, during one one-year time period, we were bombing Iraq every third day so the door swings two ways here. In addition, our sanctions were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children according to the most conservative estimate (375,000 while the UN estimated between 400,000 to 800,000).

Phil, is it really out of sincerity that one can consistently dismiss all criticisms of our country as being based out of hatred for America?

The fact that Democrats and Republicans voted together, though it was not unanimous amongst the democrats, implies nothing. Our history is full of Democrats and Republicans using our military for the good of those whose contributions keep them in office. And the times report on Saddamn clearly is in contradiction with either the IAEA or UN inspectors. The yellow cake that was found was not weapons grade material and Iraq did not have the facilities to make it so. The Chemical weapons that Saddamn did have had a shelf life that already expired.

But we also know who supplied Saddamn with materials to make WMDs. It was Western companies and the US gov't assisted. This is well-documented in Chalmers Johnson's "The Sorrows Of Empire" and it was done after Saddamn had used WMDs.

Here is a question. What was the specific war crime that Saddamn was tried for and convicted of?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 8:03 PM caday5 writes:

Phil

It is not left-wing propaganda, it is fact. And I wouldn't count morale as being high when the Army is dealing with a significant increase in the number of suicides.

Are you idealizing America and its armed forces because you have been taught that America and Christianity are synonymous?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 9:18 PM Phil Byler writes:

Question About Saddam

Saddam was tried for murders of Shiites. There were other charges that could have been brought cooncerning the Sunnis and Kurds.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 9:36 PM Phil Byler writes:

Whoa,, caday, you are a propagandist

Whoa, caday, you are a propagandist. You are not dealing in fact all, but in left wing propaganda that is just out of touch with the real reality in Iraq and elsewhere.

You say it was not proven that Iraq was in violation of the 17 U.N. resolutions!? Excuse me, but where do you get that? You say that the Oil-for-Food scandal was done for the Iraqi people!? Excusa me, but that is absurd. You are being a useful idiot for a brutal dictator in Saddam who did thumb his nose at the international community.

You incorrectly say that we went into the Iraq War under a false pretenses; but when I point out all the facts establishing that your assertion is simply false, you say how can I question your sincerity. I do, because of the false propaganda laden posts you are making.

In the end, there is a basic problem: you seem to feel entitled to attack, recklessly and without regard to the facts, our nation's efforts in Iraq and elsewhere where our military guys are performing. You are undermining the nation's will to wage war against a deadly enemy, and you are doing so with false propaganda; that is no small matter and it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with perverse left wing politics.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 10:57 PM caday5 writes:

Saddamn

Was he put on trial for killing those who involved with an assassination attempt?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 11:19 PM caday5 writes:

Phil I

The documentation is clear, the oil for food program was not just inadequate to meet the needs of a country that had been importing 70% of its food, there were checks in there to delay and interfere with the obtaining of food for the Iraqi people south of the kurdish area. The amount of money provided for these Iraqis was about 32 cent a day and that was to provide for food, medicine, and infrastructure per Iraqi. All of this is well documented in Hans Von Sponeck's "A Different Kind Of War: The UN Sanctions Regime In Iraq". Von Sponeck was the UN coordinator of the program. He succeeded American Denis Haliday who called the program "genocidal" and resigned in protest.

Again, many criticisms of the US is not "propaganda" or bashing America for ulterior motivations, they exist because of the sinfulness of our policies. One of the most telling facts pointing to this is the filter that our news media applies when determining what it will report. Time and time again, colleagues from different countries tell me of the amount of news that our media does not report to us. Chomsky-Herman pointed out regarding the Vietnam era that opposing opinions were allowed in the news as long as they fit the parameters that these opinions did not question our right to act in Vietnam the way we wanted to. The same has occurred regarding the msm reporting of the Iraq War and our candidates from the Republican and Democratic Parties.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 28, 2008 11:19 PM caday5 writes:

Phil II

Again we invaded under false pretenses. The decision to invade was made before Oct of 2002 sometime during the summer of that year or earlier. In fact, Paul O'Neil who was working in the Bush Administration from the beginning stated that from the beginning, the Bush Administration had decided to invade Iraq. Richard Clark, who worked in counterterrorism, said that immediately after the 9-11 attacks, the Administration wanted to attack Iraq despite the fact that earlier in the year, both Powell and Rice are on film saying that there was no WMD problem with Iraq. And there is British documentation, the Downing Street memos that reported Bush's decision to invade Iraq had been made at least during the summer of 2002 and that intelligence was being made to fit the policy. I could go on.

Finally, Christian Fundamentalists from other countries tend to be politically liberal
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 12:22 AM Phil Byler writes:

What IS Sinful

What is sinful, caday, is your left wing hatred of America. This country is, as Lincoln called it, the last best hope of Earth. We removed a brutal dictator in Saddam and propelled the Iraqi people to democratic government. We are on the forefront in the battle against the 21st century fascists -- the Islamofascists. Yet, you castigate America. How perverse. It is not Christianity you invoke. It is destructive left wing politics.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 12:27 AM Phil Byler writes:

You Repeat Yor Falsity

Repeating your false statement that we invaded Iraq under false pretenses is no answer to my 7:14 PM post explaining why we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power; and it was not under false pretenses. It is a form of lying on your part to keep repeating what is false on this subject.

Did you cry about the removal of 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium from Iraq because it makes you the liar, and then decided to repeat the mantras about false pretenses anyway?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 12:34 AM Phil Byler writes:

America the Beautiful

Based on your posts, caday, you are a deluded leftist. You make assertions about the situation in Iraq that most left wingers won't say now because they know the assertions aren't true. Our military guys are succeeding, and the world is a better place for it.

America is a great country. In the 21st century, America will lead the way to a better future and, among other things, defeat the Islamofascists.

You, however, will miss it because you are trapped in a morally bankrupt ideology. You fill your mind with interpretation of fact that is misfocused and steers your mind away from recognizing the obvious.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 9:50 AM caday5 writes:

What is sinful

is the attitude you expressed about America is what the Nazis said about Hitler. For both, it wasn't God who was the hope or leader, it was man. Bonhoeffer noted this when Hitler came to power when he said that the young people of his day had a new idea of fuhrer. Niemuller contradicted Hitler and said that God was his fuhrer. What we need here is people who will say that it is Christ who is our and world's last best hope. We must view all other groups and individuals as fellow sinners.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 9:59 AM caday5 writes:

Who is repeating falsehood

I have answered that post. The congress's decision is not a verdict on Saddamn because the only ones who could have verified the caharges we were making was the UN inspection team and up until the time they had to leave, they did not find what we said Saddamn had. And it was the head inspector's conclusion that the weapons we said they had, had been destroyed in 1991.

In fact, it is the WH who later said that Iraq did not have the WMDs we said they had. And again, regarding the yellow cake, it was not weapons' grade material and Iraq had no facilities for making it that.

The only weapons found which violated the resolutions were already know to the UN inspection team and had a shelf life that expired.

Finally, we should get to the start of Saddamn's attempt to create nuclear WMD. It was the fault of the Israelis. Below is a link documenting that the Israeli attack on Osirak started the Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Ewilson/publications/OSIRA K%282%29

You will see that author's documentation cites other scientists who came to the same conclusions he did. And the only defense you will have here is an a prior reasoning that rules out mistake or sins by either Israel or the US.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 10:00 AM caday5 writes:

What else is sinful

is the way you wish to talk down to those who disagree. You are not exhibiting the fruit of the spirit mentioned in Galations 5 and you are doing so not in defense of the Gospel but in defense of something that is man-centered.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 11:49 AM Phil Byler writes:

You're Off the Wall Nuts

Your equating today's America with Hiter's National Socialist Germany and your calling America sinful shows just how off the wall nuts you are, caday. There is no kinder way to put it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 11:52 AM Phil Byler writes:

Another Idiocy, caday

You got to be kidding me. Your "answer" about a nuclear Saddam is that Saddam had to seek nuclear weapons because of Israel. In addition to being an America hater, you are an anti-Semite.

No, you have not been answering my points. You are talking insane far left wing nonsense.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 2:37 PM caday5 writes:

No I am not

equating them. But those who would make America the world's last refuge are somewhat comparable with those who made Hitler their fuhrer. It is God who is our hope rather than a country or a person. Those who agree with Lincoln might be guilty of preaching another gospel. For whatever we add to the gospel soon becomes its replacement and we can tell if we are following that other gospel by how we defend what we believe in. If we show the works of the flesh in defending what we believe in, we are not defending the gospel.

In addition, though America is not nor has never been as bad as the Nazis, we have our own sins to atone for. And though we are not as bad as the Nazis were, we have sinned seriously and need to repent.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 2:39 PM caday5 writes:

Did you read

the documentation. It comes from a person who was the then chair of the dept of physics at Harvard and he cites other scientists who came to the same conclusions he did about the Osirak reactor.

So your disagreement here is with the documentation, not me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 3:03 PM Phil Byler writes:

I Actually Have Read Excerpts

I actually have read excerpts of the so-called documentation. You far left wingers are nuts. I don't care what positions you have. I am a graduate of the Harvard Law School, so let's just say I know how to evaluate such things and people.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 3:07 PM Phil Byler writes:

Did It Everf Occur To You, caday?

Did it ever occur to you, caday, that your obsession with the so-called sinfulnes of America leads to morally disarming us in the face of what is truly evil in the murderous radical jihadists -- better described as Islamofascists.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 8:50 PM caday5 writes:

Phil

You didn't read the documentation let alone any other documentation, did you? Note that the author of link was not graduate from Harvard but the chair of the department of Physics at Harvard. And he went to the site as well as the authors of the references he cited.

Did it ever occur to you that you are following an old trap? It was Herman Goering who answered the question on how one gets countrymen to fight a war was to convince the people that both they were under attack and that pacifists were traitors.

Certainly we were attacked on 9-11. But by whom? By no one in Iraq. Rather, we were attacked by an amorphous group whose membership increased with the invasion of Iraq. In addition, their attack on 9-11, as was the attack in '93, was a response not a first strike. It was a response to our actions, which started with the '54 coup in Iran, in the Middle East. Actions that included our support of dictatorships which goes on today, unbalanced support for Israel so that Israel has a free hand to do anything with impunity while the Palestinians are sorely oppressed, and the sanctions in Iraq which again had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

If we really want to defeat terrorism we should include looking in the mirror to military actions. But to do that, one would have to admit that despite what Lincoln said over 143 years ago, we might be doing evil and thus rather than assume that whatever we do is right because of what Lincoln said, we have to examine our actions on a case by case basis.

Phil, Jesus gave a parable of the two men praying. The one who claimed to be righteous was the one who went home condemned. What does that say about making American exceptionalism apart of our patriotism?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 10:36 PM Phil Byler writes:

Did it ever occur to you?

Did it ever occur to you, caday, that you have established yourself as a far left wing nut job?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 10:56 PM caday5 writes:

Phil

You are avoiding questions. Questions regarding your reading of the documentation I have listed as well as relating Jesus' parable of the two men praying to an ultranationalistic view that refuses to consider whether their own nation is guilty of wrongdoing.

As for the your comment about me being a leftwing nutjob, again, is such a response showing the fruit of the Spirit or the works of the flesh as listed in Gal 5? I bring this up because you have presented yourself as a believer who is reacting to those who have attacked your faith using political issues.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, July, 31, 2008 8:03 PM Phil Byler writes:

To caday, once again

I am not avoiding your points. You are avoiding mine. I keep pointing out to you that your hatred of America and need to condemn it constitutes moral disarmament in the face of true evil in the murderous radical jihadists. You instead insist upon wringing your hands about supposed errors of America 35 to 50 years ago while we are in a struggle with a 21st century fascism in the radical jihadist ideology; what you are doing is either you are being cowardly or you are being a willing accomplice to the cause of the radical jihadists. I don't say that lightly as to the latter because there is an emerging alliance between the Left and radical Islamism; both are based on an utopian vision, albeit different ones.

Lest you think I avoid your points, I note as to the "documentation," you questioned my reading of it after I observed that I am a Harvard Law School and that the fact that someone came from Harvard did not overwhelm me. You noted that the Harvard guy in question was from the Physics Department. Therefore what? My "therefore" was that anti-Semitism is still anti-semitism wherever expressed, even at Harvard University.

As for your reference to the parable about the two men praying, how you get from that to your condemnation of America is not one of logic. That is why I refer to you as a left wing nut job. You are not being rational, and your ideological position is causing you to take irrational, untenable positions.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, July, 31, 2008 11:20 PM caday5 writes:

Phil I

The difference between us is that you believe that America has a special place amongst the nations and therefore has privileges that equip it in its mission. I believe that America has a equal place amongst the nations. My criticisms of America are not calling for the destruction of America but rather, I am calling for America to repent and it should repent for the following reasons:

1. It is what's right to do.
2. It reduce long term problems. Our coup that overthrew the Iranian gov't in '53 led not just to the Iranian Revolution that we are still paying for today, it moved us to support Saddamn Hussein in the 80s as a balancing power in the Middle East
3. It is for our survival because as the Russell-Einstein manifesto stated, either we eliminate war or we do away with mankind.

Next, how is criticizing policies of the American gov't being anti-American? Likewise, how is criticizing the Israeli gov't being anti-Semitic? In either case, I, and others like me, are simply criticizing authorities. I am simply doing what many other Americans and Israelis are doing, that is criticizing the misuses of power by those who have authority.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, July, 31, 2008 11:20 PM caday5 writes:

Phil II

And it also seems that you missed the point of what anti-Semitism is. Anti-Semitism is a description of antagonism against a race rather than a religion. But did you know that Arabs are also Semites? So why can't we say that criticism of Arabs is also anti-Semitic?

Finally, though you talk as if our only sins are 30-50 years ago, history and today's news beg to differ. In addition, if you do not wish to assume that Wilson's assessment of the Osirak reactor is correct, that is fine. But it is a strong indicator and along with the other references that support his assessment. And this misguided bombing simply illustrates what our battle is about. We are fighting those who are reacting to past and present policies. And the best way to win that fight is to eliminate unnecessary offensive policies. And then, as the latest Rand Corp report says, use a police action approach, in contrast to using wars and invasions
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 12:01 AM Phil Byler writes:

caday re Phil I

You keep on avoiding dealing with the conflict with the radical jihadists. You do know, don't you, that bin Laden formally declared war on America? It was pursuant to that declaration that 9/11 happened, with the deaths of over 3,000 people on American soil. While you call upon America to "repent" for actions over 50 years ago in Iran, America is leading the West in defeating the forces of radical jihad that murders innocents.

You do recognize, don't you, that since 1979, Iran has been governed by radical Shiite mullahs who are one element in the radical jihadists and who have been waging an undeclared war against America? Iran today threatens a nuclear holocaust against Israel.

Being critical of American or Israeli policies is not in itself anti-Semitic. Being wilffully blind to the terrorist attacks on Israel and the jihadist intent to obliterate Israel is anti-Semitic.

So your talk about America being just an equal nation misses the point. America is blessed with material riches. America leads the world in democratic government, spreading it after WWII in Germany and Japan and spreading it again more recently in Iraq. As Lincoln said (Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 1862), America is a the last best hope of Earth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 12:06 AM Phil Byler writes:

To caday re Phil II

Your second recent comment is, to me, incoherent. So. let me bring focus: You do recognize, don't you, that Iran's Ahmadinejad has been threatening and continues to threeaten to destroy Israel? You do recognize, don't you, that Hezbollah, which is armed and financed by Iran, is waging war on Isreal, being sworn to destroy Israel? You do recognize, don't you, that the radical Islamists Hamas is also waging war on Israel, being sworn to destroy Israel? If you don't recognize these facts, then I think that it defines you as anti-Semitic because you are effectively siding with radical jihadists who seek the destruction of Israel.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 12:18 AM Phil Byler writes:

To caday re unncessary policies

Your argument that the way to eliminate conflict is to eliminate what you call our unnecessary, offensive policies. This is one reason why I view you as a left wing nut job. We were not attacked on 9/11 because of anything we did; we were attacked because of what we are -- a democratic nation that offers freedom. There is ont conflict becaue of our policies; there is conflict because ideologies of tyranny seek to enslave men and women, and we stand for freedom. Because we are militarily strong, freedom has survived and spread.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 11:03 AM caday5 writes:

Phil

Blindness can strike others than those critical of American policies. For example, just as you cite being blind to Jihadists, there are many who are blind to previous and current attempts by some Zionists to ethnically cleanse the land of Arabs. It was written in the diaries of early Zionists, both common settlers and leaders, and it is implied by some of the policies of the day.

And we can be blind to the role that America's past policies have played in creating radical Jihadist enemies. Certainly Iran went through their revolution in '79 but that was in response to an oppressive US installed leader.

I have not ignored the question of those who oppose us. I have, on the other hand, offered a different strategy. That is one of recognizing, apologizing, and making amends for our past wrongful actions and then using a police approach where we isolate our strikes against Jihadist leaders rather than conduct full scale wars that cause massive collateral damage. And where we can, instead of assassinating these Jihadist leaders, we put them on trial in an international court. And btw, I believe I already mentioned most of this before because the latest Rand Corp (a conservative group) report said that that we should be using the police approach in conducting our war on terror.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 11:14 AM caday5 writes:

Phil

Re Ahmadinejad, we have a difference in understanding. The difference is whether Ahmadinejad is threatening Israel because he wants to wipe out the Jews, a popular conservative interpretation, or because he wants to eradicate Zionism. My one coworker who is familiar with the language believes that the latter is the proper interpretation. Those who believe the former interpretation is correct often compare Ahmadinejad with Hitler. Such a comparison is inaccurate because there is no eliminationist tendencies that one can see in Ahmadinejad that we could easily spot in all of Germany back then, let alone Hitler.

For centuries, many in Germany wanted to eliminate the Jews though for most the chosen means was attrition with a few considering forced emigration. Hitler tweaked this eliminationist bend to include extermination.

There are no eliminationist procedures in Iran let alone plans for Israel. This does not imply that one should take Ahmadinejad lightly, that would be a grave mistake. But we should be as precise as possible when assessing the threat he poses. In addition, we should realize that though he has the title of President, his power is more comparable with the power of our Speaker of the House. And those with the most power, the Grand Mullahs, have already agreed with the Arab initiative--that is full recognition of Israel based on their return to the '67 borders. Even Hamas has agreed to that--and they agreed twice.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 11:15 AM caday5 writes:

Re 9-11

The documentation clearly supports the analysis that says we were attacked for past and current policies.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 2:28 PM Phil Byler writes:

caday, apologies are not a policy

It is too mild to say you are naive and unrealistic when you say that you offer a different strategy -- one of apology to the radical jihadists. That is no strategy; there is nothing to apologize for; and even if you did "apologize," that would not solve anything. The radical Islamists will still cut your head off -- you are an infidel.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 2:42 PM Conservabear writes:

Thank You Phil Byler

Yes Phil you are correct you have summed it up beautifully.

We refuse to allow some throw-back from the 9th century Radical, Islamic, Nazi, Fascist, Nutcase Delusional, Satan-Possessed-Terrorist to enter our country and our homes seeking to kill us. No thank you caday5 I may be a Christian but I hold to this philosophy after 911 kill them before they kill us.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 3:22 PM caday5 writes:

Nothing to apologize for?

Overthrowing a democratic gov't in Iran and installing a dictator who is favorable to American businesses is nothing to apologize for?

Supporting harsh dictators like the ruling family of Saudi Arabia is nothing to apologize for?

Supporting Saddamn Hussein by supplying him with materials to make WMDs is nothing to apologize for?

Constructing and enforcing sanctions that are responsible, by the admission of our own gov't and the recognition by everybody else, for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and what could be over 1 million Iraqis is nothing to apologize for?

Invading Iraq so that approximately 4.7 million Iraqis have been displaced and up to 1.3 million Iraqis have been killed and using the same defense for the invasion that the Nazis used in the Nuremberg trials is nothing to apologize for?

And finally, supporting Israel's brutal and oppressive occupation against the Palestinians rather than just supporting Israel's right to exist is nothing to apologize for?

See, if the radical Jihadists are reacting to unnecessarily offensive actions by the US, then apologizing for past policies and changing direction might actually win over enemies or at least reduce the number of recruits our enemies can garner.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 3:28 PM caday5 writes:

Conservabear

Hey kid, how are you? I was gone from the blogging for a little while because I needed a break--I taught 3 summer school classes at once.

I am going out on a limb here but from reading your note to Phil, I am guessing that you don't agree with everything I am saying.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 3:44 PM Conservabear writes:

Caday5, YA THINK

Yea, well I missed you too. Glad to see you are still making friends.

Now what ever gave you that impression. The fact that, I know first hand what it is like to be tortured, I a survivor of abuse and torment by catholic school nuns and fellow students even in public school, would want to lash out at morons wanting to kill us for religious fanatic beliefs.

Agree with you? in a pigs eye.

Even though we are friends, You really know how draw my ire or fire whatever.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 7:25 PM caday5 writes:

Conservabear

The only thing I know how to draw is your fire. Outside of that, I can draw nothing but I am good at music.

I believe the blog battle is over the nation's self-image. Should we look at ourselves as being above everyone else in character and thus entitled to privileges or should we look at ourselves as equals and thus be subject to the same standards as everyone else should be?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 10:07 PM Phil Byler writes:

caday, you are scum

Caday, you are scum for falsely accusing America for causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraq
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 10:14 PM Phil Byler writes:

caday, you are scum

caday, you are scum for falsely accusing America of causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. YOu live in an alternative universe, and it is not reality.

I write this strongly because my older son is now a U.S. Army Captain who when a First Liewutenant served 15 months as an infantry platoon leader in Iraq, earning a Bronze Star and a Commendation Medal for Valor for actions under fire. My younger son is a U.S. Marines Second Lieutenant. I know what our guys are doing in Iraq, and they are the good guys. The Iraqi children, by the way, love our guys. The bad guys are the radical jihadists who engage in suicide bombings killing innocents in such places as schools and market places. Far from apologizing for what we have done in Iraq, America should be praised. We removed a murderous thug of a dictator and propeled the Iraqi people to democratically adopting a written Constitution and democratically electing its government.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 10:35 PM glnflwrs writes:

I Agree Phil

This caday5 character is a stringed puppet spouting what he's hear
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 01, 2008 10:39 PM glnflwrs writes:

Oops

I write that word more and more often it seems...

Anyway, caday5 can't think logically and is afflicted with an inability to understand abstracts thought such as accountability, moral character, or consistancy. He just parrots what he's heard that sounds kewl. A Product of the YouTube environment.

A true degenerate, de-evolved pond scum.

Glenn Flowers
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, August, 02, 2008 12:17 AM caday5 writes:

Phil

I think your son's belonging to the Army and participation in Iraq is hurting your objectivity and reading. In the note I am referring you to, it was sanctions that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Our role in the deaths of these children was acknowledged by then Sec Albright.

The occupation is also hurting Iraq but in a different way. We know this from the Winter Soldier testimonies, the Ground Truth documentary, and the work of journalists like Chris Hedges. In addition, from 2005, we know that the majority of Iraqis oppose any permanent US presence. We know that in 2006, Maliki wanted a timetable.

But also we know there are a number of groups that fought our troops in Iraq and Al-Qaeda was just one of them. We know that we faught Sunni and Shia insurgents who were or are fighting occupation rather than for some radical Jihadist cause.

The difference is that you look at the US through rose colored glasses. You allow the Bush administration to use the valor of our troops as a moral shield for the mission. And what you cannot reconcile which is well-documented is that we are undermining democracy in Iraq in two ways: 1) building permanent bases when the Iraqis want us out; and 2) using State Dept employees to help in negotiating no-bid contracts with Iraq's oil minister for our oil companies. BTW, both the majority of Iraqis and the Iraqi parliament rejected agreements with foreign oil companies.

I am neither attacking your's or your son's character. I am simply saying what the documentation points to. And it is not just me or a bunch of left-wing radicals who say this, it is also some returning Iraq Veterans who testified to what they saw and did.

On the other hand, you are the one making unwarranted character assessments and you have from the beginning because what I say disagrees with your idealized view of the US.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, August, 02, 2008 8:25 AM Phil Byler writes:

No, caday, the real problem . . .

No, caday, the real problem is that you are looking at the world through left wing, America- hating glasses. You fill your head with left wing propaganda that mischaracterizes itself as the truth and that bears no real connection to what is gong on; and you spout it as if that were the situation. It's not. I don't care how many pieces of left wing propaganda you cite, and I don't care what Albright says about anything, whether accurately or inaccurately reported.

I refer to my sons because in following what they do and what their fellow soldiers and Marines do, one can only say God bless the U.S.A. and God bless the American soldier and American Marine.

In Iraq, the American soldier and the American Marine did God's will.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, August, 02, 2008 7:38 PM caday5 writes:

Phil

I look at the facts. If the facts support those on the left, I will go there, otherwise I'll go to the right. We seethe facts differently and having sons in the military can affect your objectivity in numerous ways.

I will also go by the Bible. You have called identifying America's and Israel's sins as being anti-American and anti-Semitic. Basically what you are showing is a pro-authoritarian bent since I am mainly criticizing those in authority. You took criticisms of authority and said that they show hate to America and racism. If you could show the link between criticizing the abuse of authority and racism, I would be interested in hearing it.

Finally, you have been accusatory from the beginning. Again I refer you to Galations 5. In one set of verses you will see the works of the flesh and in the other the fruit of the spirit. Show me how eagerness to accuse is demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, August, 02, 2008 10:11 PM Phil Byler writes:

No, caday, you are not looking at facts

No, caday, you are not looking at facts. Your posts are full of false statements coming from left wing propaganda sources. As I have written in a number of posts, what you are saying is disconnected from reality.

No, caday, you are not being led by the Bible. Your religion appears to be left wing politics. That is not the Bible. You are misapplying the Bible to support your left wing plitical views.

No, caday, I have not been accusatory. I have gone after the expression of your "opinions" that I regard as a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, August, 03, 2008 8:44 AM caday5 writes:

phil

calling people scum is following the Bible and not being accusatory? Relegating documented facts as merely being left-wing because these do not support your conclusions is not the sign of objectivity--the Bereans were praised for the objectivity in Acts 17. And you have yet to show how my religion is left wing since you have no clue where I stand on religious issues.

I have already provide some links showing the documentation and rather than read through them, you simply make accusations of anti-American hatred or anti-Semitism--bTW, you have yet to show how criticizing the Israeli gov't is anti-Semitic and you have yet to show how criticizing the American gov't is the same as hating America.

Again the conservative battle is one over self-image. You feel that either your own or your nation's self-image has been taken down a notch and so you strike out at those criticizing America. Meanwhile, there are those of us who are criticizing America who want America to repent and do what is right.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, August, 10, 2008 8:02 PM Phil Byler writes:

To caday

I have stopped the dialogue, to the extent it can be called that, because you were not being responsive, not to my blog about the Iraq Overture and not about my replies to you.

I called you scum because you made an utterly false terrible accusation against our troops. Excuse me, but our troops (including my sons) are our nation's best, and left wing critics such as you can fairly be called all sorts of names when you impugn the troops. There is nothing nice about your accusations; so don't posture about that the Christian not calling someone names. Actually, a Christian will engage in righteous denunciation.

Caday, you can repeatedly say you are dealing in facts all you want, but you are not. One of the tricks of the left wing is to create supposed documentation of its facts, which amounts to nothing but false propaganda. You say that I am ignoring your "facts"; what I am saying, however, is that you are living in a world of false propaganda.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, August, 12, 2008 5:36 AM caday5 writes:

Phil

If anyone has refused to deal with the truth, it is you. Using a priori reasoning, you have deemed as untrue any criticism of American foreign policies. And what is worse, you have used the valor of the troops to shield the the policies of our country from any moral assessment. Thus, your name calling stands as a personal attack that does not show the fruit of the Spirit as specified in Gal 5.

Along with the Gospel, you seem intent on elevating our nation to the level of a deity. This is understandable because it is a common behavior exhibited by American conservative Christians. We have been brought up to use the flag as a book cover for the Bible so that an attack on one is assumed to be an attack on the other.

But you might be surprised to learn that Fundamentalists from other countries see things differently. While we are busy flattering ourselves by worshiping the flag and deifying our nation, they are assessing our country in a more biblical manner.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, August, 12, 2008 6:29 AM Phil Byler writes:

Wrong, caday

Wrong, caday. Truth and morality support what we have done in Iraq; the valor of our troops have made it possible.

And while you try to tear America down in terms of its moral standing, what is going on in the world? Russia brutally invades Georgia. What does the world do? Dither around and do nothing. The only hope Georgia has is America. Only America has the moral wherewithal to stand up against today's fascists -- the Islamofascists, the Castro wannabes such as Chavez and the Russian imperialists led by Putin.

Did it ever occur to you that by constantly disparaging America that you are paving the way for today's fascists to succeed and for the world to become an even more dangerous place?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, August, 12, 2008 10:48 AM caday5 writes:

Actually, I am correct

With the majority of Iraqis wanting us to leave while we are still trying to strike a deal for a permanent presence and the majority of Iraqis against privatization of their oil while our oil companies use state dept officials to help them draw up no-bid contracts and while our are the real beneficiaries of this war. In addition, what is indisputable is that, according to the Nuremberg Principles, conducted a war of aggression using the same defense that the Nazis used during the Nuremberg trials. That is indisputable.

What is also indisputable is our support for Saddamn Hussein prior to the Kuwait invasion. We supported to the extent of sending him material for making WMDs even after using WMDs on his own people.

Now it wasn't our troops' decision to attack Iraq that brought them there but rather it was their obligation to follow Presidential orders. The President charged them with the mission and thus the mission carries a degree of independence from the valor of the troops.

But we also know from multiple sources, sources such as the Winter soldier testimonies, the documentary "Ground Truth" and the latest work by Chris Hedges, that this mission has put our troops into morally compromising positions that some are refusing to repeat as they refuse multiple tours. Certainly, not every soldier's experience is the same but that goes both ways.

So while you refuse to be objective in morally assessing America's invasion of Iraq because there are bigger bullies to fry, what you have implied is that what Saddamn has done or what Russia is doing is where evil begins. In addition, you refuse to acknowledge our how we are accessories to Saddamn's crimes and how what Russia is doing in Georgia is nothing in comparison to what we have done in Iraq. Certainly what Russia is doing is horrible but ask yourself this question: how would we respond if Russia got Mexico to join their federation and to consider putting Russian Military equipment there?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, August, 12, 2008 9:32 PM Phil Byler writes:

caday, you are wrong

What is indisputable is that you are wrong. We removed Saddam from power in order to uphold international law. Saddam was in violation of 17 U.N. arms resolutions aimed at enforcing the truce from the first Gulf War. Saddam had refused to comply. Bush did not change the mission. He obtaioned Congressional approval for the action of removing Saddam; since 1998 when then President Bill Clinton signed it into law, official American policy was regime change in Iraq.

The majority of Iraqis do not support our withdrawal. Aemrican troops are the trusted security force in the country. Iraqis do want to stand on their own feet, and we are moving to that time when they will be able to do so -- in victory over the radical jihadists.

Your reference to "winter soldier testimonies" and "Ground Truth" show you to be a deluded, lying hard core leftist and anything but a Christian. Sorry, caday, but multiple tours are willingly being done by our troops, who believe in what they are doing. They are the good guys. Your effort to say that they are being ordered to do bad things is a filthy lie.

To say that what we did in Iraq is small in comparison to what Russia did in Georgia is just absurdly stupid. We removed a brutal, murderous dictator in Saddam who had been a terorist enabler and propelled the Iraqi people to adopt democratically a written Constitution and to elect democratically their Government. Russia brutally invaded a sovereign nation in Georgia killing thousands of civilians. Again, caday, you show yourself to be a deluded, lying hard core leftist and anything but a Christian.

Your hatred of America is sick.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, August, 13, 2008 1:02 AM caday5 writes:

Phil

We only removed Saddamn after he invaded Kuwait. Before that, to the day he invaded Kuwait, we supported him and supplied him with materials for WMDs. If you want, I will provide some specifics. And btw, Israel is guilty of violating far more UN resolutions and we ourselves were found guilty of violating international law when conducting our terrorist war against Nicaragua in the '80's.

But there is a greater problem here. Your only response to documentation and personal testimonies is to call it left-wing and anti-American. Such response does not prove your point. Again, you seem to have an a priori bend when reacting to criticisms of America. A priori reasoning is more of an indication of prejudice than proof.

And what you missed in the comparison between Russia's action in Georgia and our actions in Iraq is this: because we destroyed their infrastructure in the first persian gulf war and kept it in a state of disrepair during the sanction years, we are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraq Children and possibly over 1 million Iraqis total. Our guilt for the deaths of these Iraqi children was acknowledged by our own gov't officials. Russia has done little compared to that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, August, 13, 2008 5:53 AM Phil Byler writes:

No, caday . . .

Your latest diatribe only confirms my assessment of you as a deluded, lying hard core leftist. You are indeed full of hatred for America and Israel.

No, caday, we did not "support" Saddam back in the 1980's; we only had contacts with him because back then, Saddam's Iraq and revolutionary Iran were very much at war with thousands of casualties, and we were in an undeclared diplomatic war with Iran after Iran had committed against us an act of war recognized as such under international law when seizing and holding U.S. Embassy personnel as hostages in Tehran.

You say that there is a greater problem in my rejection of the false, deceitful left wing propaganda that you cite. If there be a greater problem, it in in your reliance on such false, deceitful left wing propaganda.

Finally, your effort to paint us as the bad guys in the first Gulf War is false. We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, where he had seized. This did not cause the deaths of Iraqi children, and this by no mean justifies your evasion of dealing with Russia's brutal invasion of Georgia.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, August, 13, 2008 6:23 AM Armanius writes:

To Phil Byler

No sense in trying to reason with people who fail to understand that the world we live in isn't a "we are all just a happy family" type of world. These people are the ones that believe that we brought 9/11 upon ourselves. These are the people who think that if we are a nice to terrorists, then they will stop being terrorists. These are the people who value a tree over a human. These are the people who value a terrorist over an American soldier. These are the people who value the illegal alien criminal over our border patrol agents. These are the people who value political partisanship over putting more gasoline in the cars of American workers. These are the people who think Saddam was the good guy, and President Bush is the bad guy. These are the people who have the freedom to say what they want in this country, but fail to realize that the freedoms they have only exist because of what America has stood for since its birth as a nation.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, August, 13, 2008 10:06 AM caday5 writes:

Phil

In a couple of days, I will show documentation you can deal with that shows our support and provision of materials for WMDs for Saddamn.

In the meantime, you might want to read the following to see how I feel about Israel:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13889.htm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_curt_day_070601_has _patriotism_becom.htm" target="_blank">http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_curt_day_070601_has _patriotism_becom.htm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_curt_day_071123_who _will_be_the_best.htm

And with regards to my views on patriotism:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_curt_day_070601_has _patriotism_becom.htm" target="_blank">http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_curt_day_070601_has _patriotism_becom.htm

Your defense that I hate America and Israel is merely a personal attack designed to discredit than the result of analyzing my views. It is simply a waving of the hand in lieu of dealing with details. I will provide info on our support for Saddamn and his WMD program later.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, August, 13, 2008 10:08 AM caday5 writes:

Armanius

And I know many who live outside of the US who see or experience the results of our foreign and military policies would agree with you that the world is not a happy place.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, August, 13, 2008 10:11 AM caday5 writes:

BTW,

I accidentally listed the post on my view of patriotism twice. One was intended, but the other took the place of the link below

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_curt_day_070104_why _being_pro_life_s.htm
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 22, 2008 9:57 PM caday5 writes:

US and Saddamn in the 80s

I would have posted this sooner but got busy getting a son to college.

From Chalmers Johnson's "Sorrows of Empire", pg 224

Up to $5.5 billion in "fraudulent loans" were given to Iraq to purchase weapons. This was done through the Atlanta branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavroro

Weapons were also sent via CIA fronts in Chili and Saudi Arabia

Between 1986 to 1989, approximately 73 transactions took place that included material to make weapons-grad anthrax

When Iraq delivered their 11,800 page dossier on their weapons program, the Bush administration hurried to NY to take out 8,000 pages of the report regarding weapons and dual-use technology western companies sold to Iraq before 1991.

Other references you can read

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040112/scheer1230
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 15, 2009 8:26 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

WELL DONE!

Phil, well done. I see you inherited my troll caday5. Sorry bro. He still spouting his Noam Chumpsky spew?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive