Have You Been Seduced By The Dark Side.

and if I follow your suggestions, I, along with others will belong to a passive, obedient sect. Unfortunately, there are two problems with that sect. First, we belong to a democracy where the participation and voice of the people play vital roles. Second, I would be ignoring the voice of the OT prophets who challenged Israel and the kings to follow God and do what is just.

Perhaps the reason why I have "bought" into those progressive values is because I find them to be as biblical, if not more, as the conservative values. The conservative values I see are ones of claiming to be special and therefore having the right to lord over others and, on occasion, execute judgment. Yet Jesus told his disciples that those who would be the greatest were to be servants. And he told them that because his whole first coming was about coming as the suffering servant.

He also told his disciples not to make their treasure on earth and yet accumulating wealth is at the heart of American conservativism today. So when Chomsky describes the motive behind SS is that we care about others, it hits chord in my biblical values.

As for America, I simply let history speak. And if history says we have done a lot of bad things and it bothers you, don't shoot the messenger--that is history. Certainly other countries and groups also have a bad history. But has an American, I have both a greater influence on America's policies as well as greater responsibility for the same so I must speak up.

The idea is to be PRINCIPLED rather than "passive" and to stand for SOMETHING rather than anything. We have a duty and opportunity to vote for and elect principled people who will seek ways to assert and enforce our core values rather than to succumb to the status quo - blame America first and always.

If history supports blaming America, then there is only one appropriate response: CHANGE. Don't jump to conclusions here because Obama isn't representing a significant change. But the question is is American force really defending principle or the prosperity of the few. We have a history of the latter, see:

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm,
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Of course that was pre WWII and if you are interested, I can list post WWII actions that were undertaken for principle.

I am suggesting a review and accounting of our lives when and where it is needed and then acceptance of the forgiveness of God. Then a moving on in positive steps. (eg.Like Drilling fo oil so that those who will not have oil to heat thier homes get it and don't have to go to some other dictator's country to get it) Maybe this is a bad example. anyway In other words, you have a problem you acknowledge, you repent or change, you accept forgiveness and then you move-on. You don't sit in your own crap and wallow in it, no self-flaggellation or sack cloth and ashes. The job was done on the cross and through the resurrection. Get on with the living.

But when has our country acknowledged its own sin? When did our nation confess that it broke international accords (The Geneva Accords) to fight in Vietnam? When did our nation acknowledge that it participated in a coup that overthrew the Iranian Parliamentary Gov't in '53?

Have we confessed that we have broken the Nuremberg Principles and the UN charter when we invaded Iraq or that we violate the UN charter when we threaten Iran? Have we told the Palestinians that we have supported Israel even when Israel committed crimes against them?

See, just because prophets have spoken about our nation's sins does not imply that anyone but the prophets have repented.

Again with the U.S. Violations! So would you prefer a public trial of the "Sins of the U.S."? I am sure our enemies, would prefer to be judge and jury at our War Crimes Trial. Why don't you go ask them. I am sure they would gladly oblidge. They can pencil it in for the July 4th, 2008. It could be broadcast in glorious HDTV.

I look at it this way, some people are easily swayed by hysteria they are willing to believe the worst of U.S. Until all the "Evidence" of wrong-doing you have is proven by an INDEPENDENT source, I just refuse to believe it, Like I refuse to believe in the GLOBAL WARMING CRAPPOLA.

Which do you want me to prove? The Geneva Accords concerning Vietnam were written in the 50's. If you want and when I get time, I can show you that we violated those accords by preventing the S Vietnamese from voting for reunification with the North.

Or do you want me to prove that we broke the Nuremberg Principles. These principles state that the supreme international crime is a war of Aggression. They found that nazis guilty of conducting such wars despite the nazi defense that they anticipated a Bolshevist invasion. This apology of "anticipatory self-defense" was reject by the Nuremberg courts. It is the same defense we used for invading Iraq and for our national security strategy--the latter is not my opinion alone but the opinion of former Nuremberg prosecutor, Ben Ferencz.

So let me know what you want me to prove.

Nothing I like better than a good challenge
Show me the references and I'll give you my opinion. Lets start with The Nuremberg Trials and then we will work our way forward.
Be advised that I am not as lofty minded or brainy as you are and it will take me some time to formulate my thoughts.

The following reading pertains to the Bush Administration's general direction and is compared to the principles employed at the Nuremberg trials. The writer is Ben Ferencz, a former Nuremberg prosecutor.

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/85.html

I read it a few times. It still is a little confusing to me. The US has still not signed the ICC Treaty to this day? And how would this have affected the Gitmo detainees today if it had been signed?

The reading really has to do with the invasion of Iraq because the justification for that invasion was "anticipatory self-defense." Because Bush and his team said an attack could happen in the future, we must act now. The Nazi justification for their actions in Eastern Europe was because they anticipated an invasion from the East--Russia. Therefore they invaded Eastern Europe and slaughtered tens of thousands of Jews because they thought that "when" the Russian invasion came, the Jews would join the Bolshevists.

Let me know if there is something I can try to explain in the article and thank you for reading it.