Search results for query: *

Moose! said:

maw said:

Since my two measures of Christianity (REAL, big 'C', Christianity) are: Love God with all your heart, and Love your neighbor - anyone who doesn't live their lives by this standard is not a Christian.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

maw said:

And  yeah, that is the measure, an that is how it's judged.

Click to expand...

Nice qualification there. "It's right because I said so!"

Click to expand...

OK, Moose - last comment on it - I wrote accurately and truthfully, based on full educated knowledge and not out of any kind of ego game, so it appears in your post you're neither knowledgeable enough or educated enough to edit me on this issue. So here goes, Reader's Digest:

I wrote, in order to be [whatever club here] you accept and follow the rules of the club you join - Christianity being no exception.

So let's take a long look of what is the key obligation of a follower of Christ: what I wrote. Reading from the Christian Rule Book (AKA the Bible, perhaps you've seen it once or twice, maybe on TV?), Jesus Christ, the guy (some say Son of God) who is credited for starting it all, answered some guys at different times and written about in the book of Luke, chapter 10 and again in Mathew 22 (I'll leave it up to you the read the whole thing, so neither of us take it out of context - they're short, so it won't bore you). Was asked  basically 'How do I get Eternal Life' and 'What is the Greatest Commandment?'

This Jesus guy quoted first an old testement commandment from Deuteronomy 6:4, which in context, were supposedly God's words to Isreal on how they should conduct themselves IF they were to serve God. Except by Jesus's time (like today) people (particularly leaders, and particularly particularly religious leaders) look for justification to excuse bad behavior, and mitigate it through non-biblical logic. Essentially, they don't follow their own rules.

Comes down to this, kiddo, it's not my measure: it's the by-laws of being a member of this thing called Christianity, and it encompassess every other guidance, directive, rule, commandment, whatever that is part of Christianity. The litmus test. If any interpretion of scripture doesn't meet either of those two requirements, if any act someone is planning to do conflicts with either those two measures, it ain't Christianity - which includes conquering the holy land with a sword or bomb, gouging eyes, handing out blankets contaminated with smallpox, making another human a slave, lying, cheating, committing adultery, murder, gossiping, hating, and the like. And the understanding of all scripture, as well as the choice to serve God as a Christian, requires those two mandates be the lens of reading/doing/saying/watching anything and going anywhere. Something small 'c' christians don't want to educate themselves with - since it would probably eliminate half of the corruption and ego boosting wars (which are oh, OH! so much fun).

If it ain't lovin', it ain't Godly. And if it ain't Godly, it's anything but Christianity. Finally, it's not right because *I* said so - but because the Christian Rule Book noted that Jesus Christ supposedly said so.

Now - back to Iran. I'm thinking if you want to start up another thread on Christianity, do it. Otherwise...

How 'bout them Iranians? They gonna make the Nuclear playoffs this year, or what? I hear that Ahmedinajad guy is got a mean pitch... maw

Úlfheðinn said:

One of the ironic parts of Scandinavian history was when pagans were offered the choice of converting to Christianity or suffering torture/abuse at the hands christian church.

It led to the hilarious: "Accept the love of God or have your eyes gouged out! Remember the choice is yours..."

Surprisingly it lead to a significant increase in the number of conversions. Truly a great period in the history of religion. 

Click to expand...

One of the other ironic parts is that the pagans did the same to the 'christians' to return to Paganism. Truly an accurate representation of scandanavian history (I should know, since I come from a long line of Danish Kings - or was it just because I eat a lot of cheese Danish? I forget...)

Seriously - the gouging of eyes, forced conversion, and killing on non-believers is not a part of Christian Theology. Anyone who suggests that is foolish, and needs to educate themselves on Chrisianity.

However, like the Crusades, much of the wicked acts done by men claiming to be 'christians' were for selfish reasons: for personal power, increase of wealth, and to gain allies. I think it's clear that happened when you consider the history of Christianity and Politics in the Scandanavian Countries (Hey! That sounds like a thesis or good book title!) Some, however, were genuine. Seems like the raiding slowly ended in proportion to the number of Christian churches being built over the period, so there may be some connection as new generations of Scandanavians brought up in churches turned to a peaceful religion.

This is a digression, and has little to do with a possible conflict in Iran. Just saying you could probably explore the 'Christianity' aspect through another thread. But maybe become familiar on what it is and isn't, without creating new interpretations of scipture or trying to force biblical verses to fit a circumstance. And just because you call yourself something doesn't mean you are - it is how you act, how you accept and follow the rules of whatever 'club' you join, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, Liberalism, or Conservatism, whatever.

Since the two measures of Christianity (REAL, big 'C', Christianity) are: Love God with all your heart, and Love your neighbor - anyone who doesn't live their lives by this standard is not a Christian. And  yeah, that is the measure, an that is how it's judged. It takes both parts, and one needs the other. Anything else is a Man's interpretation, not God's, way of doing business.

I'm thinking eye gouging and the like doesn't sound so loving. Now - back to that Iran thing. maw

ps - notice how more and more often a thread deginerates into Christian bashing? The only thing the thread needs now is some subtle homo-erotic comments, and someone calling someone else a Nazi and it'll be a true Taleworlds thread.

All this, Finnish hottie, essays, and she drinks, too. You are a Finlander, yes?

If so, I'm falling in love. maw

Jhessail said:

My whole point was that your idea of an amphibious invasion of Iran is completely ludicrous when US has bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Turkey - all countries surrounding Iran from every direction. Because we also know that deserts are nothing to the might of the US Logistics Corps - after Desert Storm 1 and 2 - why do you think Pentagon generals would risk committing into the single most complicated and challenging operation known to military when they can launch a four-pronged conventional land invasion, augmented by air-mobile operations if necessary? No sane reason, of course. Hence my argument that your peanut-sized brain is overloaded with Modern Warfare or Saving Private Ryan or other similar bull****.

Click to expand...

Umm... no...?

Iran, having a relatively modern military, would require relatively conventional force-on-force, mandating heavy weapons - the bigger armor, artillery, and logistics that cannot be delivered and supported by air.

Facts - Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Turkeydo not have the US Forces to prosecute any kind of conflict beyond operations other than war/low intensity conflict. Meaning: the force available would contribute little beyond the staging of un-conventional (SOF or irregular) forces against Iran.

Politically, in any case, none of those nations would allow themselves to be publically complicit in beating up on Iran (maybeeeeeeee.... Uzbekistan, if we pay them enough... but being landlocked themselves, probably couldn't forward stage a lot of those things we need, same as Afghanistan). They are neighbors, have no grievance against Iran, and would have to live with Iran long after the US leaves. There would most probably be a cobbling of another unwilling coalition, which would be extremely unpopular in Europe due to economic/financial woes. And the US most probably would not commit to another land conflict due to its own woes, and being an election year.

The conflict would be: Air strikes and SOF crippling the infrastructure, nuclear development sites, and C3 nodes. Asymmetric political and economic actions. All geared to provoke the local yokels to get tired of the hassle and toss off the Iranian government, a la Serbia. Failing that, there would be a continuous no-fly zone and the bi-daily incremental slamming of military technical sites (leadership, air/missile radars, C3, heavy bridges, airfields and aircraft). There would be no land war. Not at least for the next year, which would keep it as a 'conflict' rather than a 'war'.

The deterrent of this path would be Iran's choices of retalitory action: terrorist attacks against US targets by already-in-place sleepers on US and Eurpoean soil, and the hell that would be unloosed on Isreal. Those are almost great enough to be an absolute no to any mix up with Iran - unless the perception of a Nuclear Iran is a greater boogey man.


It took 6+ months to build up to a land invasion against Iraq, with use of critical kinda friendly Saudi ports, and the US still had a naval assault against a heavy armor/heavy arty component. Afghanistan was very different in that the Talib forces were primarily light infantry/light armor, landlocked, and we used a proxy local military force to clean up after B52 strikes. To this day there are logistical issues in the 'stan - since most of the supply rolls through an unfriendly Pakistan.

Kenski's logic seems solid right now, which would be an amphib landing the US doesn't have the ability to consider now, and in any case is unneccessary. And will continue to be true until we see a forward stationing of heavies. Until then, regardless of the size of his brain, games he plays, or movies he prefers he's probably more accurate.

To sum up - unless there are incredibly unlikely changes in Europe's economy, the state of US finances, and the complete flip of Turkey or Iraq, you won't see a four pronged military anything; and the purpose would be to eliminate the nuclear weapons capability and to promote a locally originated change of government, which wouldn't require it.

And no, I'm not back. Just floating by. maw
- edited

I'll feel genuinely suprised if he does. But, I'll survive.

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/hes_barack_obama

I still laugh. Though it's a painful laugh. maw

They're all scum.

Fact is, regardless of the environment, President Obama had his shot at a four-year moment of greatness, couldn't overcome the challenges, and showed that he and his administration lacked the critical competance to overcome.

You'll note that previous statement, although general, was devoid of partisan bias. Just truth. And no matter how much his apologists lay at the feet of former President Bush, Repugnicans, the great Right Wing Conspiracy, world economy, etc. a president of any corporation, or nation, either overcomes or succumbs to circumstances. Those who overcome are great leaders, no matter their political position. Those who succumb by lack of talent, skill, and/or ability go down in history as emarrassing failures.

So the general feeling in the United States, as I'm reading it, is that even if the other candidate is <insert accurate assessment or innacurate slur here>, BHO had his shot and missed it, not just once but repeatedly, and Anybody But Obama will be the next president.

And I'm to busy these days to haunt the forums like I use to. Oh, well. maw

I can comment on that...

Iran has two governments: the official, national government, handling the mundane issues through a secular lens of problem solving, and a religious government, pretty strong and independant of the national government that resolves problems based on religios opinion. It's pretty much the mulluh v. the president. And they don't agree, often.

The Republican Guard is exclusively subordinate to the religious government;  everything else is run by the secular governement, although senior levels of intelligence, ground, air and sea forces have 'true believers' that essentially act as oversight in the Iranian Armed Forces - and there are two internal secruity apparats, one religious and one secular. Methinks they run the nuclear program, as well, or at least the security and oversight part.When a bomb is made, the RG will be controlling it.

The Republican Guard is most likely soley responsible without secular approval such things as supporting Islamic terrorism through money, intelligence, training, and rest & relaxation. There are also responsible for providing training and components to the various nasty weapons, particularly high tech IEDs, to the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents. Thats pretty much why the US and other nations haven't made Iran accountable - Iran is really always on the knife edge of civil war, as the religous type are about 20% of the population, and about another 20% are Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supporters, and the rest of the country just wants to steer clear of any fallout between the two. With this confusion, the Repub Guard can get away with a lot, but so can Mahmoud, as well as various other entities such as student protestors and the like. But essentially, any hit on Iran making them accountable for the relatively small annoyance that the Republican Guard does risks uniting the nation under the religious government, ending any chance of having the Iranians replacing their government themselves.

Things like attacking the Brit embassy may be a faction of the religous types trying to curry favor; the secular government most probably wouldn't support something like that. Further, it probably wasn't necessarily done with Ruhollah Khomeini's planned intent, but he pretty much rolls with anything that enhances his stature, as any attack on the evil western satans do.

Still, it could have also been Islamic Fundamentalists in the Intelligence field, or in the security apparatus, for retaliation against the brits for something public or not so public that they did or supported - once again, without either government's approval - but, since successfull, more or less embraced afterwards for political points.

So there you have it.

As a side note - slapping Jhess around by demeaning her, or anyone else, isn't fairplay. People get passionate about their opinions, and look at issues through their knowledge and life experiences. Those experiences create a prejudicial position that, because of pride, is hard to step away from if *IF* you're wrong. Add to the fact that mostimes we don't go looking to contrary reporting or opinions... Plus, what we write doesn't come out how we're thinking it should come out.

Putting someone down personally, rather than dismantling their argument with good sourcing or argument, is not respectful, and worse since there this wall called an anonymous internet that keeps the person you attacked from physically beating you for being rude. Sarcasm might be alright in context, but putting the heel to someone for malicious pleasure definitely isn't.

As the great philosphers The Black Eyed Peas asked, "Where is the love, y'all?" maw

Huh. I go away and Mage and Mage starts taking the conservative beatings... to be fair, Mage, it appears that you were being a bit aggressive... and Jhess - you managed venom and bitterness along with your rhetoric. Really. I think you need someone sensitive in your life to give you comfort. And remember: alcohol and posting don't mix.

I neither remember nor find reference to the US Embassy ever being recalled from the Soviet Union. Just saying. It'd be interesting to be able to recite that fact with some reference, so if you know of it, please pass it on. I'm not kidding. It is really a bit of info I'd like to know the history on... since that's the first time I'd heard it. In my recollection the Ambassador to the Sov Union was recalled several times, to take personal direction or have discussion with the State Department or the president several times during diplomatic history, but at no time with the Sov Union was an embassy 'recalled', particularly in the sense that the US ended diplomatic relations, which is nearly always the same as shutting an embassy. And closing down an embassy is usually a warning that violence can occur against the nation, at any time.

I don't understand the comment on embassies in Kosovo, North Korea, and South Sudan. Kosovo and South Sudan have embassies, to my knowledge, and had established them after the US acknowledged their status and security conditions permitted. The US works though the Swiss Consulate in North Korea - we don't have an embassy there since North Korea maintains we are still in a state of war with them. I don't know how all three nations can share any kind of the same comparison. Presently, we don't keep embassies in five nations - Cuba, Iran, Bhutan, North Korea, and Taiwan. Taiwan is not recognized by the US for concern of messing up interaction with Communist China. Bhutan is small, and unusual in that the US seems to have a 'so small not worth the embassy' position. The US has outstanding and unresolved issues  with Cuba, Iran and North Korea - so, no embassy.

For a long time we didn't have embassies is other nations, like Vietnam and Libya, for apparent reasons. However, nations we broke off official diplomatic relations, as conducted through an exchange of ambassadors, is very rare and unusual, and not common as commented.

And the United States' relationship with Iran may not be defined as a state of war, but most probably as in a heightened state of conflict - Iran may expect military action by the United States at any time, as retribution for the 1979 hostage issue and continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, threats against US allies and US interests. And the US has frozen their assets as well as interfered with their economy through sanctions and blockades throughout the years, pretty provocative short of shooting, I'd say. Not so much state of war but more like a state just short of official military conflict. Same conditions with North Korea. Cuba is simple retribution for choosing communism over americanism, and embarrassing the United States.

As far as a strategic action, it would be an amphibious and air assault. Iraq and Turkey would not allow an attack from their soil by the US, and probably Afghanistan would deny it also. The politics is that it serves no interest for any of those nations to screw their next door neihbor. Further, and land build up would take months in Iraq and Turkey, virtually impssible in Afghanistan due to logistics, and travel through the moutains in Turkey and Afghansitan would be insane. To rapidly deploy the heavy amor, mechanized infantry, and support it could only be by sea. Airborne would be rough against an established and professional military like Iran, and Air Assault is hugely limited by range. So if conflict gets to ground war, it'll be the Marines followed up by US Army via amphib.

It won't appen, though. Any conflict will be more along the lines of what happened against Serbia. Relentless hammer of infrastucture, ratcheted up daily, to provoke the civilian population to rise up against the government while weaking the state security and military appratus, the cripilling of export and import movement, the reduction of high tech and expensive to replace radar, communications, naval and air assets. And Iranian radar, SAM, and aircraft are all defeatable in the sme sense that Serbia's forces were defeatable. The United States has too many gizmos to bury medium to small opponents, missiles and ecm and eccm and eccccm et technological cetera before the planes enter Iranian airspace. Why commit ground troops when you can accomplish a regime change thrugh massive stand off attacks?

The only real deterrent now is the worry that Iran would retaliate through unconventional means, bio and chem against our allies including Isreal, as well as supporting/hiring out terrorist attacks against our civilians in the US.

And Jhess, I'm embarrased you shared that picture of me...  I mean, as long as I maintain my six pack abs and bring home a paycheck, a girl can put up with the car bed and stuffed bears...

You really, really, REALLY need a hug. You all do. Except Kobrag. He gets a manly, comradely pat on the back. maw

Thanks for commenting, Papa. But I did put foward ideas, and observations, in my prior posts.

Oh. You must be referring to Arch. Or just jumping in late. maw

Adorno: Prove reducing taxes and government produces inequality. Show me how the government and taxes increase success - a least in the last 45 years, my lifetime. I'm pretty solid here, seeing the failures of the education system, HUD, welfare, social security, medicade/medicare, the EPA, BATF, and - I could go on. In short, there is no overal successfull government program, in that someone else must suffer financial loss, involuntariy, to make anything happen.

Prove how less government and less taxes increases crime, and how it is not the choices of people who choose to do evil. Your financial status hardly commits you to hurting someone through murder, rape, or theft.

Essentially, back up what you stated. I willing to discover a gap in my knowledge.

Jhess - that's interesting. In order for the Tea people to get harassed or arrested, they'd have to start off by intending to break the law. Seems to be one of their beliefs that law, even poor ones, should be obeyed at all times (note the difference between tha concept and the ones esposed by the OWS). I'm thinking that they basically understand the process about changing law - elect someone of your midset, and go through the legislative procedure, checked by an elected executive, and validate by the judicial. I'm thinking the Tea Partiers rely on rule of law and elections, not harassment, intimidation, and unlawful occupation to make a point.

Arch, my good sir - adepty cherry picked. Now put some effort in and put in a contrasting argument of worth. Though I'm getting an impression that its to much effort for you these days. You actually seem kinda grumpy, to me, recently. And  in my opinion, if someone wishes to subordinate their dreams, goals, and life to someone or something else, with the power of life and death over them, they've picked their 'god' - wheher it's government, or career, or significant other, or a by-faith belief in a unseen entity. But I know you're smart enough to have picked that out of the context of my commentary, so why the short remarks? Dark humor? Bitter about a relationship? Bad moo goo gai pan? Out of beer, and economically unable to replenish?

I do believe that, yes, local government can be as corrupt as anything else. Difference is, it's closer to the electorate, and can be addressed very incisively if the electorate chooses. As opposed to several layers away in DC.

And we are arguing over 'how long the miniskirt should be allowed' by any other name - abortion, taxes, increased spending, abuse by government agencies, moral agendas like homosexuality and promiscuity and out of wedlock cultures, oil dependancy, immigration, personal freedoms, governmet interventions. Because the liberal position since the 1960's  has chosen to obfuscate and tear down estabished norms without lawful process in obedience to the constitution, we have rejected fixed morality, and suddenly are able to shift our now-flexible morals by saying 'Well, it's not all right in this situation, but its ok in that' or 'Although I think that's wrong (or immoral, or unethical) and I wouldn't do do it, I couldn't impose that belief on someone else'. Yet we do it all the time, and harass the hell out of anyone who disagrees with a liberal position, blackball them, use the media to belittle them, use the law to silence them. And so goes the sneering against conservatives, the snide comments against the Tea Partiers, the bitter treatment of those who disbelieve 'Global Warming', the condesension against Christianity, and a God, and so many other things the 'religously' liberals do.

Love what you liberal thinkers are doing. Keep it up. maw

Nice. I laughed. Funny, except when you find Iran has missiles that can reach halfway into France. Luckily, thats still about 6,000 miles shy of Washington DC.

If I was Iran and wanted to go out with a bang against the Great Satan, I'd hammer every western target I could hit, disrupt nations internally with terrorism and sabotage, and melt Isreal. I'd do it with all my conventional, bio, chem, and nuke at my disposal. I might not survive, but I'd be remembered for as long as there was recorded history. And as a bonus, it might usher in the 13th Madhi.

Remember, not everyone in the world wants to live forever, or even for now. Some are thinking the next life is way more important, and act accordingly. maw

Then you're getting angry over nothing - because that is not the purpose of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party core is 1) Reduce taxes, 2) Reduce unneccessary spending and 3) Remove power of the Federal government and give it to States. Everything else ends up being local chapter opinion, and most want to seperate social issues from the running of good government. You'll have chapters that are pure secular, and those tinged with religious foundations.

Here is what I find hypocritical about the statement the Repugnicans or conservatives of Tea Partiers 'want a theocracy' - liberals also want a theocracy. A theocracy where the Federal Government is the ultimate arbitrator, the unchallenged power, the redistributer of wealth, the giver of gifts, the benevolent dictator who rights all wrongs, that lifts of the failures to success and punishes those who are viewed as succeeding off the sweat of others. The Federal Government will Save Us! It will give us Free Health Care, and Food, and Low Cost Mortgages and Cheap Gas! 

The US has part of that theocratic government, now, and it is a mess, like the economy, like the foreign affairs, like the legal system. Because everyone part of that system has a different moral standard on what is allowable and what is not. And some have no moral compunction in enriching themselves or their friends or their re-election contributers on the taxpayers dime.

I think it is because the foundations are being replaced - the constititution, and the original moral beliefs that made the naton work in one direction. You don't have to believe in God to be moral, but you have to accept solid, unchanging, unwritten rules of what is right and wrong. Laws change, society without a fixed moral anchor changes - neither can be more than a temporary standard. Rape is rape, murder is murder, stealing is theft - and the only time you need 200+ laws on any of those individual crimes is when you want to avoid individual, personal responsibility create and environment of 'Well, that's not really murder' or 'He had a bad childhood, so he can't be accountable for that'. You need a moral anchor, and always remind yourself what is right and wrong. You need a lawful anchor, and always remind yourself what the limits of a ruler are.

This OWS people want power, and are an extreme minority. Not through the lawfulelection process, but through threat and intimidation. Talk about avoiding personal responsibility. maw

I think it's the actor that now plays 'House' - Hugh Laurie; and 'Jeeves and Worster' was hysterical English humor at its finest. I  am one of the very few americans that bought the DVDs.

Which might again make me one of the 1%.... hmmmmm... maw

Ah, Arch... always the fair and balanced voice of liberalism - didn't it use to be libertarianism? I forgot... I was away for a year and a half. But personally attacking or demeaning someone who doesn't agree, even in jest, is above you. Tell us: what problem have you with the so-called tea party people?

Meanwhile, OWS in Zucotti Park, NY: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-11/news/30265911_1_loan-guarantee-wind-farm-solyndra

Meanwhile, liberal Newsie writes about OWS: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/new_york_marxist_epicenter_gVrMJIKezP82E3Gkki2IvO

Meanwhile, I continue to laugh my ass off at the protesters. Guess that means I'll be one of the first up against the wall when the revolution comes. maw

Perhaps, Kobe. But then you have taken away a basic human righ - freedom - and replaced it with a despot's opinion of what's right or wrong. You'd probably do better as a benevolent dictator if rather than forcing compliance you created conditions of success that have  dominoe effect. Pretty much how I think the US was prior to the 1930's.

But killing people to force economic re-distribution? Really. Why not also just kill people to force moral obediance, and thus get rid of the immoral? Or kill people to force racial purity, and get rid of the Jews or Blacks or Hispanics or <insert your choice here>? maw

I'll agree Cuba is successfull.

World Bank rates it 62 out of 190 nations, right below Angola, Iraq, and (if it was a country) Puerto Rico. Of course, no one can compare to Fidel's free and open society, huge advances in technology, and uncomparable living conditions that are the envy of anyone in North Korea or Zimbabwe.

Communist China has allowed capitalist ideas into it's country, and capitalized (heh... capitalized.... get it?) off it's huge, cheap, unpolitically represented and politically repressed labor base, and massive exports to (mostly) capitalist nations. Not to say they don't have a lot of positives going for them, but I'd attribute that to their cultue, not communist politics. Mao would not be pleased where his communism has gone. Pragmatic Cmmunists? Or maybe, since the US has been hybridized into a socialist representative aristocratic democracy, maybe China has morphed into a capitalist socialist communist autocracy. In any case, it is not purely Communist, or even Maoist.

Success shouldn't have just one metric. China's production is making it economically strong, and that is benefitting it militarily and diplomatically. I'm thinking the social and domestic political issues are too much to call it 'successful'.

I'm not going to make my voice 'heard against corporate greed and unregulated capitalism' - I'm going to act by being successfull and treating everyone I deal with respectfully and politely, maybe even appreciatively, realizing I can only succeed if those people come to me and spend money. If I make enough, and am too busy, I'll hire someone and pay them as much as we agree on. Maybe more than one. And f I run things right, I'll succeed, they'll succeed, and everyone who comes to us for goods or services will be happy. 

But I'm not going to voluntarily redistribute my success because someone thinks I'm making too much money, or hire extra people just to take them off unemployment, or keep someone on payroll either because I have too little work. And the guy who gets cut is the one who is not producing as much as the next guy in line.

I'll make it. Although I may not be as successfull as Cuba or China. maw

Wel, the first reported stimulus to the economy attributed to the OWS group: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/occupiers-killing-stimulus-funded-sod-dc

Prolly not $419,000 to fix, but hey, what's a few bucks (note: someone elses bucks) more for le revolucione?

Logically, with all the extra police protection, damage and cleanings to occupied sites, reduced tourism, impact on traffic, arrests and prosecutions for those intentionally breaking the law, and the like - it's all got to cost. Who is paying for it? The Gub'mint? Nope. I'm thinking.... ummm... the top 50% of the employed citizens.... you know, the tax paying half.... not those protesting, I'm sure.

Oh, anyone pick up reports that not only our President has given a shout out to the OWS, but also China, the US Communist Party, and the US  National Socialist Party? (Hey, isn't it the obligation of the executive to UPHOLD the law, not to encourage debasement or disobedience to the law? Musta got that confused in my first year civics class....)

And you thought Nazi's and Commies couldn't get along.  Although people do judge you by the company you keep, I hope China, the Commies and the Nazis don't take a big hit to their reputation for associating with BHO.

Contrast the OWS with the Tea Parties... Tea Parties got permisson to have their shindigs in advance, in accordance to the local laws... didn't illegally occupy or invade public or private space.... either cleaned up or paid for clean up of the areas after their thing.... nobody arrested... went home at the end of the day... back to work the next day....

Tea Party rallies: thousands
Tea Party participants: millions
Tea Party squabbles with Law Enforcement: 0
Tea Parties confronted by riot police: 0
Tea Parties dispersed by tear gas: 0
Tea Party arrests: 0
Tea Parties causing violence/injuries: 0
Tea Parties causing property damage: 0
Tea Parties responsible for the death of anybody: 0

hmmm.... maw

Good points, Seth. I just can't agree about the the same token of lawful and unlawful. Mostly because the idea that someone or entity was free to do something. If something is allowable, and not restricted, even if not directly addressed by authority, it is within the law, and so is lawful. Laws don't so much allow things as much as restrict things - even laws that allow you to do something specific, by the writing of the law, limits you to doing that specific thing as lawful.

It is this: the Iraq war was not judged by any empowered authority as unlawful, and stands as lawful until otherwise determined by an empowered authority. The argument can very well be you are not a criminal until convicted, or a law breaker until you are caught - but there are enough smart lawyers in the world, enough governments that dislike the United States that if the Iraq action had been unlawful, it would have been pursued as such. It wasn't in the United Nations, the Hauge, ICC, or in any national jurisdiction as far as I am aware.

'The World' through opinion does restrict nations from acting. If a nation's leaders, for instance, believed that they could do something without facing retaliation, they limit themselves fromaction. If the US believed it would've faced enough condemnation, or punishment through sanctions, or even national blockades (such as oil from Muslim nations) it would not have acted against Iraq; Isreal, also, does things with an eye to its relations not only with their western 'friends' but with respect to their sleeping local 'enemies'.

Nose-to-nose Isreal would take down several of its neighbors, may even two or three at once. But it couldn't take down ten nations, with a world embargo and maybe intervention. So a full out conflict with Iran wouldn't be viable. If the US starts a full out in your grill conflict with Iran, it would face a lot of international condemnation, and at our present economic and political situation, wouldn't be vible. However, if Isreal conducts a limited strike against announced targets with the US shadow keeping a lid on any expansion, it would be a different story.

Its looking more like Iran is going to be hammered politically for now. If nothing further aggravates the situation. Now would be the time for a false flag op to try to piss off both nations,and escalate. The more I read about the so-called assasination attempt, the less I believe it was real. The whole thing was clownish, and exaggerated at the start. I just can't fathom the purpose of the assasination, nor can I understand why our administration is reponding so heavy handed on it. maw

Kobe, you are mistaken. Saddam's Iraq had many ties to international terrorism befor the conflict (Army of Mohammad, Islamic Jihad, both ** affiliates even then, to name two) . Simply Google 'Terrorism Funded by Saddam'. There are more than enough sources. A particularly well written one is found here: http://husseinandterror.com/

And again, some can say the Iraq war was lawful and neccessary. A particular position, however strongly held, doesn't make something legal or illegal, or right or wrong. Bottom line, the Iraq conflict has not been found illegal. By any authority empowered to judge it.

Kobe, you left some harsh words. I'd agree that it was a US endeavor, supported by your government (as well as many others, 25 I think). The US committed 150k troops'ish, while Britian committed about 50k, and everyone else TOTAL about 10k. Ninety plus percent of the coalition casualties were US forces. And many anericans did support the conflict, at least half of the voting population I'd estimate, at the time. And governments are entrusted by the voting citizens to make the st decisions for their country, or get voted out the next go round. Wasn't the Brit PM re-elected AFTER the war? So it would seem it wasn't such a hot button for the citizens there.

I understand passion against the war, and any war. But a persons position, opinion, belief that it's wrong shouldn't be a vehicle to slap down someones disagreement with it. I'll be right up front with it (although you already have read this, more or less, in other threads): Saddam' government was an evil blight on the world, the world commonly believed that Saddam shouldn't be protected, and the United States for reasons far more important that revenge, successfully led the effort to remove Saddam's destabilizing government from power, lawfully.

I see a headline today that the US administration has determined how it's gonna beat down Iran, by aggressively poking the nuclear issue http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/white-house-says-data-shows-iran-push-on-nuclear-arms.html?_r=1&hp

I suppose if it demonizes Iran enough, the world won't react if a proxy (Isreal) destroys the two or three nuclear refinement facilities. maw