tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post112440504004876719..comments2023-10-02T06:06:38.784-05:00Comments on Fires Along the Tallgrass: Fool's LogicPhil Dillon, Prairie Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00933117233625601141noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1125729342169999402005-09-03T01:35:00.000-05:002005-09-03T01:35:00.000-05:00Jay, you're funny - in kind of a cliche sort-of-wa...Jay, you're funny - in kind of a cliche sort-of-way. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, Jay, the problems are all out there, arn't they? With all of the others - "those conservatives". Not you. If only we all listened to you and considered carefully your penetrating back-boned questions.<BR/><BR/>/sarcasm<BR/><BR/>V - Peace through Victory ... or it through Surrender?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1125673271907261922005-09-02T10:01:00.000-05:002005-09-02T10:01:00.000-05:00Many problems in human experience are the result o...Many problems in human experience are the result of <BR/> false and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised <BR/> in man-made religions and humanistic viewpoints & hoped-for philosophies.<BR/><BR/> Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe. <BR/> The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human <BR/> reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the <BR/> intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it <BR/> perceives and measures values. (The liberals don't get it.)<BR/><BR/> Humanism makes man his own standard of measure. Ouch! <BR/> However, as with all measuring systems, a standard <BR/> must be greater than the value measured. (Repeat! Testing later.) Based on <BR/> preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal <BR/> nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton <BR/> task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-<BR/> tites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands. (Evidence?)<BR/><BR/> Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament, <BR/> cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist <BR/> lacks a predictive capability. (Duh) Without instinct or trans-<BR/> cendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with <BR/> foresight and vision for progression and survival. (Now we know why.) Lack-<BR/> ing foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and <BR/> is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, collectivism, <BR/> averages, and regression - and worse. (White-cane stuff.) Humanism is an <BR/> unworthy worship. (But it fits the liberal personality and ego-appetite so well!) 2 going on 3?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124974248248324332005-08-25T07:50:00.000-05:002005-08-25T07:50:00.000-05:00Frank is right...it was Cheney that actually publi...Frank is right...it was Cheney that actually publically said it would be quick and easy. All the rightwing toadies eachoed it endlessly and called those that doubted "traitors" and worse.<BR/><BR/>My...how their memories seem to have faded...along with their reasons for the war in the first place.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17364474203368804347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124956452321811062005-08-25T02:54:00.000-05:002005-08-25T02:54:00.000-05:00j. said..."I remember when President Bush said thi...j. said...<BR/><BR/>"I remember when President Bush said this war was going to be quick."<BR/><BR/>You remember Incorrectly sir!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124956321372908122005-08-25T02:52:00.000-05:002005-08-25T02:52:00.000-05:00Jay,Its amusing to me to see how you liberals defe...Jay,<BR/><BR/>Its amusing to me to see how you liberals defend Clintons Blow Job and then make argument after argument against a persons smoking habit.<BR/><BR/>regarding the war, you are all so quick to point out that we have have lost 1,8xx soldiers, and will expend such great time and energy trying to discredit the administration. <BR/><BR/>Yet on the second hand smoke issue you will run commercials claiming that we lose 53,000 people a year to it, but do not put nearly as much time and energy into it as a cause.<BR/><BR/>Frank,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124577530042505502005-08-20T17:38:00.000-05:002005-08-20T17:38:00.000-05:00Sin,In the examples that you cite for putting live...Sin,<BR/><BR/>In the examples that you cite for putting lives at risk (World War II, an airplane heading toward a building, etc.), the danger is/was clear and the need for action is/was clear. By contrast, it’s not clear to me that Hussein was a threat to this nation. A number of war apologists are now saying that the danger Hussein posed to the U.S. was painfully obvious, but I don’t see that. Hussein was confined by sanctions, inspections, and no-fly zones; he was effectively a neutered pariah among the Community of Nations. Moreover, as frighteningly repressive as Hussein’s secular regime was, at least he kept a lid on the kinds of theocratic dogmas that were flourishing under the Taliban in Afghanistan — and now, apparently, under the Iraqi insurgency. So, your analogies don’t hold up. <BR/><BR/>The number of mounting casualties in Iraq deserves attention because in the build-up to war, Bush and his spokespeople did not prepare America for a costly sacrifice. They did not prepare us for a body count in the thousands. Remember Dick Cheney on <I>Meet the Press</I> saying “we’ll be welcomed as liberators” by the Iraqi people? Remember “Mission Accomplished”? I’m sure Bush was expecting war with Iraq to be relatively short and easy, something like the 1991 Gulf War. Instead, what he has gotten us into looks a lot more like Vietnam. <BR/><BR/>I’m especially bewildered why so many Americans are excusing Bush’s discredited rationales for going to war with Iraq. Even if they think that the overthrow of Hussein was a good thing, they should still be holding Bush accountable for all the exaggerations and misleading statements that he made in the months before the war. Their outlook seems to be: Bush may have misled the American people, but he did so for a good cause. In other words, the end justifies the means. I don’t agree with that. <BR/><BR/>I also disagree that the media is as liberal as conservatives like to say it is, but that’s a discussion for another time. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Phil,<BR/><BR/>My recovery is going very slowly. I have gone from seeing hardly any doctors before my surgery to seeing three a week afterwards. At 45 years old, I feel like I am old before my time. Still, I guess that recovery beats the alternative. Thanks for asking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124560047312443342005-08-20T12:47:00.000-05:002005-08-20T12:47:00.000-05:00In a sentence, well said: George Bush made no mora...In a sentence, well said: <BR/>George Bush made no moral case for invading Iraq...A Bronx Talehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05938962050128686935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124553461040204032005-08-20T10:57:00.000-05:002005-08-20T10:57:00.000-05:00Blue Goldfish,I suspect you don't have an answer.I...Blue Goldfish,<BR/><BR/>I suspect you don't have an answer.<BR/><BR/>I wonder when conservatives are going to notice that they are not getting any from their glorious leader and grow tired of just slamming people who have the backbone to ask questions?<BR/><BR/>Maybe when their sons start dying or coming home maimed.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17364474203368804347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124550786890541192005-08-20T10:13:00.000-05:002005-08-20T10:13:00.000-05:00RobI think you've asked some good questions, parti...Rob<BR/><BR/>I think you've asked some good questions, particularly the one about how far we should extend our power and when we should.<BR/><BR/>I'll post something in the early part of enxt week to answer.<BR/><BR/>If I'm not mistaken you're the commenter who's recuperating and trying to get your writing career back on track. How is that going?Phil Dillon, Prairie Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00933117233625601141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124549918350165602005-08-20T09:58:00.000-05:002005-08-20T09:58:00.000-05:00"Are the more than 1,800 fallen soldiers — and cou...<B><I>"Are the more than 1,800 fallen soldiers — and counting — worth the sacrifice? I’ll let their loved ones answer that question.</B></I><BR/><BR/>Aside from the newly radical Sheehan, most families DO feel that their sons were doing a righteous thing. Problem is that the media doesn't like to focus on THOSE families. Why? Because it goes against their anti-Bush agenda.<BR/><BR/>If a plane is hijacked and heading for imminent impact with a crwded office building and your son happens to take down the perpetrator ... but not soon enough to avoid a bullet ... and eventually dies, would you say that it was worth his life to save so many other people? Was it worth all of those dead soldiers to defeat Hitler and Japan? Was it worth all of the dead soldiers who won us independence from Britain? Probably not either, right? That's not a fair question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124514760870252602005-08-20T00:12:00.000-05:002005-08-20T00:12:00.000-05:00Jay, I suspect you do not have a curious bone in y...Jay, I suspect you do not have a curious bone in your body.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124495422920158612005-08-19T18:50:00.000-05:002005-08-19T18:50:00.000-05:00There may be a moral reason for having Saddam Huss...There may be a moral reason for having Saddam Hussein overthrown, but that’s not the case that Bush made. The reason he gave was that Hussein possessed stockpiles of <B>weapons of mass destruction</B>, a reason built on faulty evidence, which the White House disingenuously hyped as sound. <BR/><BR/>For the umpteenth time: <B>If militarily overthrowing Hussein was necessary because he was a bad guy who abused his own people, then that is the argument that Bush should have made for going to war!</B> But it’s doubtful that a majority of Americans would have followed Bush into battle if he had said that. Instead, he misled America about Hussein’s threat to the security of our country. The White House — and presumably Bush himself — knew that much of the evidence that it presented as “proof” of Hussein’s weapons capability — from yellowcake uranium to aluminum tubes — was dubious at best (thus the “British intelligence has learned...” qualifier before the yellowcake assertion in the 2003 State of the Union — the White House knew that the “intelligence” was discredited). Bush also kept insinuating that Hussein was somehow involved with the 9/11 attacks, an insinuation that he continues to make. <BR/><BR/>Hussein was boxed in by U.N. sanctions and no-fly zones. Unlike the chaos in the Balkans (in which Clinton wisely intervened), he posed no immediate threat to the U.S. or Europe. Yet, to war apologists, anything short of overthrowing Hussein militarily would have been “appeasement.” How continuing the sanctions and no-fly zones would have “appeased” him is far from clear. <BR/><BR/>This also raises the question of whether invading Iraq militarily was the smartest way to remove Hussein from power. I supported the original 1991 Gulf War (to let Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait stand would have set a terrible precendent), and I was impressed by the elder President Bush’s ability to put together a true and unified coalition. When Bush the First had routed Hussein’s army, he could have easily sent American troops into Baghdad, but he chose not to. He knew that sending forces into that ethnicly divided city would have created deadly chaos around them. Instead, he prudently pulled back. I’m pretty sure that the president was counting on Hussein’s Iraqi Guard overthrowing him, but it didn’t pay off. Still, it was a gutsy gamble, and I respect the elder Bush for having made it. Who knows how many U.S. troops would have perished if he decided differently? By contrast, how many Americans died because of Hussein between victory in the Gulf War and the start of the present President Bush’s invasion of Iraq? (Don’t forget that Hussein had “no collaborative relationship” with al-Qaeda or 9/11.) <BR/><BR/>As I’ve asked before: How many other strongmen and regimes out there meet Phil’s definition of tyrants worthy of being overthrown? I have already mentioned the junta crushing the people of Myanmar (Burma) and preventing its duly elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, from assuming her office. Should we militarily invade Myanmar, too? When? And how effective can we be with our troops stretched so thin in Iraq? <BR/><BR/>So, the substance of what the liberal blogger said is true: Bush did not make the moral argument for war as his primary causus belli. He’s making it <B>now</B> because his Chicken Little cries about weapons of mass destruction — his pre-invasion causus belli — has proven untrue. Anyway, I’m sure that Bush hasn’t told us his <B>real</B> reason for wanting to oust Hussein. Whatever it is — avenging or showing up his father, easy U.S. access to Iraqi oil, or something like that — I’m sure that morality had nothing to do with it. <BR/><BR/>Is seeing Saddam Hussein out of power a good thing? Yes, absolutely. Has the military invasion of Iraq and the ensuing deadly chaos made America safer? Given that the ultimate result could be a Taliban-like theocracy, the jury’s still out on that. Are the more than 1,800 fallen soldiers — and counting — worth the sacrifice? I’ll let their loved ones answer that question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124492725996345822005-08-19T18:05:00.000-05:002005-08-19T18:05:00.000-05:00First of all, congrats on a very well thought out ...First of all, congrats on a very well thought out and put together post. It's great to see a Democrat whose head isn't up his ... well you know what.<BR/><BR/>Now Jay:<BR/><BR/>NONE of those facts that you mentioned ARE facts. You're just another soreheaded sore loser who wouldn't give Bush credit even if he was to end world hunger. People like you are pathetic sheep but, thankfully, you and your talking-point parrotting friends will soon be as relevant as ... New Coke?<BR/><BR/>Seems like it's YOU who has overdosed on the Kool Aid, buddy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124466501517393462005-08-19T10:48:00.000-05:002005-08-19T10:48:00.000-05:00Great post!Great post!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124460887074746332005-08-19T09:14:00.000-05:002005-08-19T09:14:00.000-05:00Still worried about Clinton getting a blow job? G...Still worried about Clinton getting a blow job? Gee...I'm more upset about thousands of troops losing their young lives.<BR/><BR/>So tell me....what is moral about a president that dismisses all those deaths by saying he needs to get on with his life and rolls away on a bicycle? Tell me what the war is about...since your moral leader can't seem to take time from his vacation to address the issue.<BR/><BR/>I'm really curious.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17364474203368804347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124459585588477532005-08-19T08:53:00.000-05:002005-08-19T08:53:00.000-05:00CliveIt seems that wayJaymaybe if I spell it out i...Clive<BR/><BR/>It seems that way<BR/><BR/>Jay<BR/><BR/>maybe if I spell it out in crayon you'll understand. Bill Clinton got us involved in the Balkans. I supported it because it was MORALLY right to do. While he was getting us involved in eastern Europe he and Monica were engaging in fellatio in the oval office. In one case it even happened while Hillary was in church on Easter Sunday morning. <BR/><BR/>You say that Bush lied (I'd be glad to argue that one in a separate venue), but my point was about the moral case for war. It would do your argument a huge amount of dignity if you would answer the questions or points raised.<BR/><BR/>I know full well you hate George Bush. I didn't like Bill Clinton, either. But like or dislike of a leader is not the issue. <BR/><BR/>It would also do your argument a lot more dignity if you would stop letting the media be your ventiloquist.Phil Dillon, Prairie Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00933117233625601141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124459101847591332005-08-19T08:45:00.000-05:002005-08-19T08:45:00.000-05:00Sometimes it must feel like talking to a brick wal...Sometimes it must feel like talking to a brick wall, huh Phil? There are none so blind as those who will not see.<BR/><BR/>Excellent post, as always.Wyrfuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01108378377720475315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124426851982334292005-08-18T23:47:00.000-05:002005-08-18T23:47:00.000-05:00Ah, the good-old "Kool-Aid" slap. And talking poin...Ah, the good-old "Kool-Aid" slap. And talking points I've read somewhere before - oh, perhaps about a zillion times. And that well worn but lovable opening line, "I love how Bush supporters go to such lengths..."<BR/><BR/>Thanks, also, for the idea for a future post. Note to self: Google the phrase " I love how Bush apologists go to such lengths...".<BR/><BR/>Can I try it, first, though? OK, here goes:" I love how liberals go to such lengths to use talking points and the word 'fact' to pass as argument and logic. Or are they just trying to convince themselves?"<BR/><BR/>Cool. Thanks. And thanks also for flashing the V for Victory sign (I agree).<BR/><BR/>Peace through Victory, Jay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124422363541435012005-08-18T22:32:00.000-05:002005-08-18T22:32:00.000-05:00I love how Bush apologists go to such lengths to c...I love how Bush apologists go to such lengths to convince others that up is down and black is really white.<BR/><BR/>Or are they just trying to convince themselves?<BR/><BR/>Anyway...fact: Bush lied about the reason for the war. fact: Bush has no plan about waging the war or how or when it may end. fact: While troops are being killed and maimed by the thousands, Bush the war leader is tucked away on a fake ranch on yet another vacation. fact: The treasury is being looted to the tune of billions of our tax dollars while the economy fragments and oil prices soar through the roof...and Bush's buddies are getting filthy rich with your money.<BR/><BR/>That must be some really good Kool-Aid you guys drink.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17364474203368804347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7734846.post-1124408701053314232005-08-18T18:45:00.000-05:002005-08-18T18:45:00.000-05:00Well said... Very well done Mr. Dillon. AubreyJ......Well said... <BR/>Very well done Mr. Dillon. <BR/>AubreyJ...........AubreyJ.........https://www.blogger.com/profile/18177790443279300985noreply@blogger.com