American Quest: Learning to Live Like Honorable Men

---

Al February 6, 2013 1:32 pm (Pacific time)

amerikan 'Honor' was last seen walking off into the sunset, with bug-out bag over shoulder, circa 1913. "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe..."???

---

Peter August 15, 2008 1:44 pm (Pacific time)

GoC, why do you ask questions in the hallway when you could have asked them in class? I know, it's the same consequence we all fear about criticism in that it may do us no good. But, finding good is exactly what we are doing. So, pay attention! To answer your questions: The oil industry is vested with interests all over the globe, as you may know, also because so much of our way of life has fostered oil as necessary for routine, accountable, productive, and reliable persistence. Failure to explore any alternative is the equivalent of neglect, if not ignorance (sorry, I didn't hear Bush claim any advance to any alternative, maybe you can fill me in). The line of thought we are asked to adopt is that, since we are supposed to change "world dependence" on oil, we must work with other countries, when the fact is that we have already contracted to some ugly deals with "the world." Contracts! Citizens rarely have a popular understanding of political-economic contracts, and that is sad, since very reliable news sources divulge of such interests all the time. Hydrogen is more efficient than oil. But there's so much of it that international use seems to eliminate an entire market before its actually exhausted.

---

Godsofchaos August 9, 2008 3:30 pm (Pacific time)

"Of course if anything is true about the government's involvement in 911, nobody is going to hold their damned hand up. What kind of thinking do you call that?" Tim King What kind of thinking? Its called patriotism maybe you forgot about it. What makes you think that thousands of people (the amount of people that would have been involved to pull off what you are suggesting happened on 9/11) would just sit idle if 9/11 was a conspiracy (no they would have leaks all over the place)? Are you saying that Americas no longer care about their fist amendment? That only you stand for our rights? News flash Americans have proven time and time again to stand tall in the face of adversity. WWI,WWII,Cold War,Civil rights movement,and many other problems. Suddenly thousands of Americans for no apart reason decide betray America and take part in a 9/11 conspiracy?Now tell me what kind of thinking is that?

---

Godsofchaos August 8, 2008 6:11 pm (Pacific time)

"It\'s been nearly seven years since the 9/11 attack and no one has come forward (guilty conscience or whatever) to say they were part of a conspiracy. It would have taken hundreds, maybe thousands of people, to have carried out a conspiracy such as some imply."Going Broke

Wow I am glad that someone out their understands the level of conspiracy that would have had to occur for 9/11 to be an hoax. One that would be full of leaks.

"The result, however, has been a mad dash chase that lead to opportunities for greater mistakes that has involved innocent Muslims who will not forgive us."Peter

Did we care that innocent Germans hated us during WWII? No, because back then America understood that wars are won by destroying the enemy not worrying about what people thought of us. No matter what you do someone will hate you for what you do...

Tim King:  Well during WWII we still completely segregated black people.  I guess you are just wrong again.  Of course if anything is true about the government's involvement in 911, nobody is going to hold their damned hand up.  What kind of thinking do you call that?  Go bow to your picture of Bush now and be sure to get to bed by 8:30.

---

Godsofchaos August 8, 2008 5:56 pm (Pacific time)

"War crimes are the legitimate judgment of the Geneva Convention."Peter One problem Peter...The Geneva Convention only implies to armies not terrorists. Have you ever heard the phrase "Name,rank, and serial number". Terrorists by their very nature can't be considered a national army and therefore the Geneva Convention doesn't imply to them. "the very market for alternative energy is swamped with patents that lay waiting for an open door."Peter "state an more efficient alternative to oil that Bush prevented before you make such a statement."Godsofchaos What part of state a more efficient alternative to oil that Bush prevented did you not understand? You just gave me another vague statement when I asked for specifics. Please state the source of energy that falls in BOTH of these categories before you make your statement 1: What source is more efficient than oil that we can replace oil with.2: Did/how/and why did Bush block this energy source?

---

Peter August 5, 2008 1:20 pm (Pacific time)

Who cares if a liar, a terrorist, or an idealist wears "illuminati" or "Al Quaeda," or "communism," or "capitalism," since the fashion makes no difference to the crimes. It's difficult to police people in general, to change their mind when they are acting irrationally, or to make people realize their responsibilities as they resist those very responsibilities. I am still for the war on terror, simply because it's more than justifiable, especially on Iraq (whose invasion of Kuwait and consistent effrontery begged for a losing battle, it was always hard to say what Saddam had learned at all from his own interaction in the world) but war also demands greater attention than all the apathy terrorists targeted. War is another paradox of value that I don't like, as no one could really enjoy it, anyway, but conspiracies are by their very nature confusing, even to the conspirators. So, here's a time-line, a sketch open to correction: [[[1998]]]: global climate change achieves outspoken reception of geological theories unparalleled since the discovery of the mid-oceanic rifts (the Moon is actually less significant because it is uninhabitable). Ozone (which is like a hole in the polar skies that permits cancer-causing UV rays from the Sun) is identified as a growing consequence of carbon and CFC's. World carbon economy is predicted, China being identified as having the greatest abundance of coal, largely untapped. So, were there to be an international law banning the use of oil, coal would only escalate Global Warming. Pressure stays on oil, catastrophes happened, and Global Warming is realized to be a naturally recurring phenomena on Earth (apparently denying the validity in the argument that we can actually escalate it on our own, and we settle with the fact that a lot of people remain dumb to science). Nuclear energy, disclosed as leaving an indelible mark in the ground, also gets debated as Russian sources are presumed easily transported. Gore develops an approach (later a movie) by means of education that would challenge the near sighted and untraditional, and anti conservative views of oil lovers. Where was the oil? How would it be marketed? How would it be secured? These questions must have intensified enough to enlist the services of terrorists. [[[2000]]]: The "Euro" goes into currency, everyone hates it, because it nearly doubled the cost of living, and many Muslims continued to live by it, to be free? no, to be peaceful (Europe is peaceful, but terrorism lurked). Our election in the U.S.A., a huge upset we won't forget, confounds our senses to the retardation of a vast Global Climate Change awareness. I have been out of school, since, active in a very awkward career. But, my intuition has always been that the war on terror is justifiable simply on the grounds of lacking legal capacity to deal with terrorists. [[[2001]]]: The WTC is attacked, an old enemy reasserts itself, and the motivation to be Global police became quickly persuasive, such that by 2003, ten years after liberating Kuwait, some dumby gets the knee jerk to lay down his bluff (Saddam's WMD's, bluffing Syrian animosity), and we get a far too easy claim of WMD's (how did Iraq get them, by loans, or from a friendly betrayal?). .....Ever since, it is as though many people have tried to reverse engineer the root causes for the war, as though no one had been using the Internet. .....back to this page: a lot has been said to cast doubt on the most likely causes of the war, even regarding some details (like cell phones on planes, calls the supposedly were impossible, buildings not being fell by planes, planes turning into liquid...that was odd, Tim, but I didn't look into it, yet)......But it is obvious to what extent we have tried to contain a crisis that, I believe, cannot be reasonably isolated to political narcissism.

---

Peter August 5, 2008 3:01 am (Pacific time)

Broke? What is this, conspiracy theory 101 for amateurs? Are you afraid of the truth, Broke? Use a name, any name, but the address is the equivalent of a scam (Descartes, rather than subject belief to infinite reasonable doubts, may as well have said that all is a lie in the absence of reason, which is what people are demoralized into believing). A set-up is already evident! Yes, indeed, by terrorists! Bin Laden, most probably since he admitted it, achieved fame for it, as well as given numerous second hand affirmations! Islamist fascism, no doubt! The result, however, has been a mad dash chase that lead to opportunities for greater mistakes that has involved innocent Muslims who will not forgive us. Do you understand that? We're not living in the past, since some of those opportunities were taken, developed, and literally glorified as "righteous." Debt to the grave would be a better name for you, rather than Broke. Or, how about "Time" for a name, since that too must be infinite. Now, with our attention on Iran, nearly a generation of people have grown to a premier student life. So, "righteous executions"? It's about time we started forcing "freedom" on people, does that sound even remotely justifiable?

---

Going Broke August 4, 2008 12:30 pm (Pacific time)

Recall when OJ Simpson was on trial? One faction said that the police were involved in a major conspiracy to set him up, even though if caught doing that criminal act, all would be looking at the death penalty. The trial has been over for 14 years and no one has proven this allegation nor has anyone come forward to say they had been complicit in this alleged conspiracy. It\'s been nearly seven years since the 9/11 attack and no one has come forward (guilty conscience or whatever) to say they were part of a conspiracy. It would have taken hundreds, maybe thousands of people, to have carried out a conspiracy such as some imply. Seems that members of congress, structural engineers, scientists, and other professionals would have been getting public attention if there was some proof that this all was a set-up. I imagine that in seven more years nothing new will change in this matter. When you have many people involved in a conspiracy, it\'s just a matter of time before the weakest link surfaces. Osama Bin Laden was behind this attack, and we will kill him and all of his accomplices, and it is my hope that I will be able to assist in these rightous executions.

---

Peter August 3, 2008 11:35 pm (Pacific time)

GoC, please, stop repeating what is being written, it's annoying, and your response is frustrated, to say the least, but not unreasonably so. Liberals are optimists, no, actually, liberals are value pluralists (values being insusceptible to the paradox conservatives ignore), not value conservativists (as though we can set an absolute price on anything), and liberals are not cynics (those who regard everything humans do as motivated by selfishness). But, you may never mind all this, because it takes no precedence to what is said to have a theory to support what is said as though what is said matters more than matter itself. What, you want me to defend and prove the truth of liberalism? Okay, the nuclear war skepticism you mention is a genuinely bona fide "no brainer," since we can reasonably predict the consequences. Evidence! Hiroshima. Holocaust: dead bodies. Make a faulty analogy and you will lose your credibility, here, with this, but perhaps only to me? I was saying what we should admit, and you tried to refute all of it! GoC, or who ever you think you are, why jump out of the trench just to be fodder unless you simply don't care to shoot the enemy? That isn't bravery, it's shameless ignorance, which is what we are trying to avoid. The fact is that evidence was destroyed! Now, to answer your questions, (1) the war is based on information obtained by "extraordinary rendition," and we still haven't heard their trials. War crimes are the legitimate judgment of the Geneva Convention. So, indeed, there's your answer. (2) the very market for alternative energy is swamped with patents that lay waiting for an open door. Why? Go figure, an oil based energy economy is doomed to conflict with our environmentalism, which btw advanced to a peak of interest right around the same time Global climate change was debated. (3) explanations as to what the realistic motive should be to warrant the war and anything that would falsify those motives, is what explanation we deserve. This, actually, has been an ongoing ordeal. But the address we are given explains only what we are supposed to describe as our motives, not the very reasons for those motives (which is the heart of the matter). Disclosing the reasons for our motives would enable much greater debate and, perhaps, take too much time? GoC, you're right to challenge my skepticism! It's that very right that we both treasure and abhor because of its apparent appeal to either clarity or chaos.

---

Godsofchaos August 3, 2008 2:56 pm (Pacific time)

"most of our participation was limited to witness television coverage, i.e., as survivors the experience is, itself, questionable (meaning, we are susceptible to doubt our perception)."Peter "So, the remoteness of my participation, like so many others, should be realized. In other words, the actual participants (excluding those who survived) are lacking testimony as a consequence of literally being forced into their own murder." Peter While our perception may be doubtable what about the New Yorkers themselfs? The people in the WTC,the poilcemen, the firefighters and other people that watched the WTC go down in person? Besides such logic lends to intellectual anarchy. If you can't turst anything else you yourself experieced how can you trust anything? For example how do you know our founding fathers found the United States of America? If You weren't phsically there to witness it. Heck all we have is words written on paper at least we have video footage of planes crashing into the world trade centers. How do you know that the Holocaust occured if you weren't their to witness it. How do we know nuclear war would be a horrendous envent because according to you since if we can't perceive it fully it must not exist. "(which is so idealistic that it truly betrays realism and generally aborts honesty)"Peter I thought Liberals were the ones who prided themselfs of being idealistic. Such as being open minded and willing to give things a chance. At present, the President has taken steps to do three things: 1)"prevent war crimes against him"-please state what war crimes he has commited before making such a statement. 2)"prevent any alternative to oil from making its way to market by mass consumption;"- state an more effecient alternative to oil that Bush prevented before you make such a statement. 3)"avoid any rigor of explanation of his own."-and what explations would that be?

---

Peter August 3, 2008 9:18 am (Pacific time)

A few things need to be admitted about "9/11" that really should narrow discussion to rational validity (which is why there is any insistence toward rationality, because it enables us to track the direction of thought from premise to conclusion and permit us to see errors along the way; some conclusions having syllogistic application whereas others may simply be cast aside as bogus). (1) most of our participation was limited to witness television coverage, i.e., as survivors the experience is, itself, questionable (meaning, we are susceptible to doubt our perception). I was there, in my couch, awoken to the news, and then the second crash; I thought it was one of our violent Hollywood movies, e.g. a "Swordfish" sequel. So, the remoteness of my participation, like so many others, should be realized. In other words, the actual participants (excluding those who survived) are lacking testimony as a consequence of literally being forced into their own murder. That, alone, shakes the conscience, if not demoralize it (though many of us survived to combat terrorism), which brings me to the second factor. This is important, because it nearly eliminates evidence (what was discovered at the WTC ground sites after their fall?; why were explosions heard at the base of the rubble, after the towers fell? Later, where did those WMD in Iraq go to? We are being challenged to rationalize mysteries). (2) hindsight on the matter can be reliably traced to any thing of relevance, generally isolated to people that were there, or people that were directly involved (which apparently precludes anyone's testimony, if the trauma or secrecy were severe enough). I remember Seinfeld commenting days afterward that people seemed to have "just turned off." The past five years have been filled with news about a war most of us are willing to follow according to the very line of thought that we intended to stop terrorism at any cost (which is so idealistic that it truly betrays realism and generally aborts honesty). (3) Then, before the war in Iraq, it was the war in Afghanistan for two years, and several more movies came about depicting how guns and mayhem have turns politics in war, itself. Desensitization to all of this due to our exposure to fiction reduces the reality to pure skepticism, e.g., anything hard to believe gets debated and only our reasoning provides a source of judgment for many of us. Letting this go would be a huge flaw on our part, and Hollywood will not write the history for it. Any consensus will require a huge survey of information. At present, the President has taken steps to do three things: (1) prevent war crimes against him; (2) prevent any alternative to oil from making its way to market by mass consumption; and, (3) avoid any rigor of explanation of his own. This is why Americans are so deeply critical of pragmatism, contrary to popular belief, because it is not the only American contribution to Western philosophy.

---

Godsofchaos August 2, 2008 7:01 pm (Pacific time)

"Just like the buildings allegedly falling down from the jet fuel induced fires. Anyone who knows a little about this stuff knows that jet fuel does not even reach the temperature required to melt steel, let alone a structure like the world trade towers that were specifically designed to withstand a 727 crashing into them."Tim King Because Newton,s law of F=MA coupled with Newtons third law of motion wouldn't effect the structuaral integrity of a building.News flash 747 hauling @$$ into a building tends to cause problems. Second the WTC were not spefcally made to take plane hits..they were made to sway with the wind. They were so massive that if they built it like a normal building the wind would have toppled it. So the arcitects deisied it to be a vertical suspision building for the same reason the golden gate bridge was made an suspision bridge. "We don't think it is productive to live like sheep that believe anything some federal suit tells us."Tim King You think I am a sheep? You do realize that defintion of sheep in your pharse implies that I would back down when facing oposition. Last time I checked I stood alone against everyone on the waterbording debate. If I was a sheep I would have changed my position on the subject. If anything I am the opposite of a sheep. If you are going to insult me at least insult my flaws porperly. Calling me belligerent would fit better. Besides unlike you I believe that most people in the miltary and spy agenices love america and try thier best to protect it....not to doing random acts of Terrorism.

---

Godsofchaos August 2, 2008 5:38 pm (Pacific time)

"There are many things about the way our federal government explained the tragedy of September 11th that do not add up, make sense, etc."Tim King

There are many things you 9/11
conspiracy nuts like to over look.

1)The witnessess: Many people called their love ones on cell phones when their planes were hijacked....are you saying that all those people lied?

2) Many News people were on the scene in New York..in fact CNN caught United Flight 175 carshing in the world trade center LIVE. Are you insiuating that an liberal media station has been taken over by Bush?

3)United Airlines Flight 93, Yes the flight that all 9/11 conspricey theroists like to ignore. Why? Because for one thing it crashed out in the middle of nowhere. Second the story of why it crashed out in the middle of nowhere.

 Tim King: Man I get tired of reading stuff like this.  If you want to keep the insults up I am just going to flush your comments, so snap it in line OK?  Cell phones don't work in flight BTW smart guy, and I have heard that one call plenty of times where the guy calls his mother and introduces himself by his first and last name.  I never needed to say anything more to my mom than "Tim".  Then there is the stewardess who sounds like she is reading a script. I am not calling anyone a liar, I am just saying that a number of things with this series of crashes on 9/11 are different from most other crashes in the past.  Just like the buildings allegedly falling down from the jet fuel induced fires.  Anyone who knows a little about this stuff knows that jet fuel does not even reach the temperature required to melt steel, let alone a structure like the world trade towers that were specifically designed to withstand a 727 crashing into them.

The DoD has released four frames of a white object smashing into the Pentagon.  They seized a Virginia Highway Department camera, a hotel camera and a gas station camera that all would have had the complete shot, not just a few feet of a white nose cone hitting the building.  There are by the way just as many witnesses that say it was a missle, a small jet, and even a helicopter.  Some of the ones you referred to saying the government version almost seemed like they knew too much, they sounded rehearsed in some cases.  I mean I have only been analyzing TV news sound bites for twenty years or so, who knows?  It is not about being emotional and waving your flag back and forth as fast as you can, the best Americans are critical thinkers who talk about how to make it better.  We don't think it is productive to live like sheep that believe anything some federal suit tells us.  

---

Godsofchaos August 2, 2008 4:08 pm (Pacific time)

"Please, explain the relevance of the original position of the United States of America and the persistence of Iran's nuclear ambitions."Peter

Let me give you hint Peter.... They dont have reason. Henry Ruark thinks you need to be a reporter to use google and Tim King thinks 9/11 was a hoax. enough said.

Tim King: You wrote recently that I used to be "nice" when I replied to you and that disappointingly, that had faded away.  Do you think comments like this are going to bring friendly responses, really?  There are many things about the way our federal government explained the tragedy of September 11th that do not add up, make sense, etc.  That is not me making something up, it is the way it is.  Imagine not being able to recover the flight recorders from a contained, domestic crash for the first time in FAA history and yet the "terrorists" passports conveniently floated to the sidewalk below.  You have to really close your eyes to be able to ignore how ridiculous that whole thing is.  Then you have the disappearing jet that hit the Pentagon.  Where did the plane go?  Popular Science has one federal guy quoted saying the wreckage "turned to liquid" and another guy later in the story says he held body parts of the crew and "and parts of their uniforms".   Turned to liquid?  Held them in his hands?  Sorry, but I have spent years researching historic plane crash sites and traveling to remote locations to see them and photograph them.  Plane's don't turn to liquid and if they did, you would not be holding body and uniform parts.  So see what you will in it, but you have to ignore glaring inconsistencies in their story to swallow any of it.  The emergency crews and morticians in Pennsylvania said there was not a single body to recover.  I guess some people like you living in some other place think those public officials who said there were no bodies to recover are all liars.   It doesn't make me happy to write about this stuff and I only bring the subject up from time to time .  But don't make a mockery of it.  And you know what else?  Hank is 90-years old and he has a heart of gold and the mind of a scholar.  He is not like most men in his age category; and he is a gifted and talented writer who never stopped caring about the little things that matter and the people who need help the most.  Neocons may believe that way, we are "weak" and "liberal" but in reality it is just an effort to care about the right things.  "Liberal" people often live more like Christians than Bush supporting pro-war types who go to church and turn around and judge people in every way possible.   You have been around to know that I am willing to do some pretty far ranging things for our visitors and there is more to come, very soon.  I just returned from an investigation of contaminated water at my old Marine base in California.  Our attempts to help veterans may not match yours, but they are legitimate and sincere.

 

 

 

---

Peter August 2, 2008 4:02 pm (Pacific time)

Thanks, Telford, your words are very encouraging. To everyone's confidence, I affirm that, as critical thinkers, we should engage in discussion commensurate with our honesty, even though consisting of often rhetorical statements to win an influence that is really beyond our direct control (Gangster rap, rage and violence included, which is why I don't buy it). So, the rhetoric should be disambiguated. Knowing the world as I do compels me to expect reasonable discussion and I found it, here, and it has been very personally rewarding, the reasonableness of which requires no gods to administer and therein lies the real force of the debate: honesty! I now realize the very genuine environmentalist and entrepreneurship argument Tim is making. In short, if I am following this correctly: this war "on terror" has presented a huge opportunity to make money on an apparently dying oil industry? That's a very intuitively correct conclusion in light of the war's preamble, it's progress, and the intellectual character of some of the leaders involved. Distinctions should be made about the extent of honesty exerted, those being our values as so placed in the very lives we mean to involve in our politics, or foreign policy. But, on the matter of agreements, the necessity of persuasion lay in the fact that it is not forced, but rather compelled. So, not only our math, but our grammar has also to be accommodating. Demanding!?! The very nature of the problem, haste, be it so simplified, has led to increasing unaccountability. I was very frustrated previously, but now I see the light, so to speak. No, we don't need to start over, that wasn't the conclusion that I had reached at all. It's the selection of arguments we make that has become reliably counterproductive that concerns me, which I have tried to conceal to avoid being responsible for them. I have been critical of American culture for not adopting a program of logic in public education that would enable voters to be more reliable, but found that our culture already does so. So, I became critical of the methods and found that those, too, were no threat to my security. Then, I witnessed television "evangelicals" calling intellectuals "encyclicals" as if our politics had imitated the very art of gangster style power worship. All as a result of the war on terror? The upset of the 2000 Gore mis-election seems a good starting point.

---

Godsofchaos August 2, 2008 3:58 pm (Pacific time)

"(Rememeber..delete the history thing so your mom doesnt know you are looking at porn on her comp)"Vic Only Vic would consider Salam News.com a porn site.

---

Peter August 2, 2008 11:16 am (Pacific time)

I don't understand the appeal to read The Federalist Papers, since the motive of the Founders was to achieve a Constitution that could enable autonomous prosperity and our subject is Iran's nuclear intentions. Iran has openly disputed the very history of the Holocaust (which set a standard of tyranny so far unrivaled that we aptly equivocate Hitler with the Devil). So, Iran has fairly made a country (Iranians) appear to be the most anti-intellectual people on Earth and we are supposed to defend that? Henry, Tim, you are both missing the point like drunken archers. Please, explain the relevance of the original position of the United States of America and the persistence of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

---

Telford August 1, 2008 9:30 am (Pacific time)

Peter I found your below post to be perfectly clear, even though it belabored the historical context beyond neccesity. One should, to become successful in sharing their opinions/analyses/assessments to others, be able to do so in a clear and understandable format so as to connect with their target audience in a meaningful way. You did an excellent job in that department Peter. Kudos!

---

Henry Ruark August 1, 2008 8:27 am (Pacific time)

Peter et al: Yours raises some further intriguing points. Your key phrase is: "...I have to disagree with the way people convey their reasoning as though any of it were satisfactory at all. Just because a person may dissent doesn't burn logic to the ground so we must all have to start over." That's the very root of honest, open, dialog. Even given that, it remains difficult to assure reasonable rational discussion, which is what dialog can provide. No matter what, we cannot afford to "burn logic to the ground", I think you must agree. Yet without that hnest, open dialog we wallow in still further uncertainty, ringed round by emotion and lack of information leading to still further dissolute and very damaging disagreements. Recent Congressional history replete with "confrontation" and "win at any cost" proceedings surely prove that, to our heavy cost and continuing peril. Ever since the Reformation and Enlightenment, reasonable people everywhere have sought solid process to produce those rational and equitable decisions demanded for fully democratic governance. NOW is NOT the time to abandon this tested-proven process --and the last 50 years of American history will go far to prove up that point the deeper the diagnosis of it is pushed. That is why the '08 election becomes truly a tipping point for all who regard what the Founders learned --and left to us as potent legacy-- as essential for further development of what can truly become the democracy we thougt we had. Tht is why we cannot, come what may, ever allow "the race card" to pollute the picture we all need for real rational and reasonable decision sure to decide the shape, depth and surely the impact of what our nation will now become. Either we mean what the Founders wrote as our eternal map for making the nation, or we do not, cannot, and never will "finish the job" for which they provided such a prescient blueprint and map-to-final destination --still valid and demanding 200 years later, in a new century.

---

Peter August 1, 2008 3:07 am (Pacific time)

offering to Henry's question, respectfully: (1) the Founders were the dissenters. Hence, the acceptance of dissent, or rather criticism (which required a freedom of speech, or political dissent, the freedom of which was intended to follow some rational source indirectly opposed to a spiritual source) but also its revolution (an intellectual and moral revolution; dissent being settled by vote) (see Karl Popper's "Myth of the Framework for an excellent appeal to reason); (2) that it was all achieved "wonderfully" implies a significant bias, since Civil War was not anticipated, nor was the concept of universal human rights very well articulated (any relevance to The Federalist Papers?); and, (3) criticism, rather than dissent, would be more optimal toward agreement, since that is what we desire. Lack of attention to the desires of the disputants can easily lead to an arbitrariness war forthcoming. We reach a point of aggravation where we simply no longer desire to challenge opposing beliefs (the result being war, or else surrender). Or is this too simplistic? The War on Terror is not phantasia. Some countries abet terrorism, whereas others do not, and they can all be identified in practice as well as in the history of their respective legal exercise. Foreign Policy debates abound with that in mind, an understanding that is not easy when there is a dominant rival in the mix. Excuse me for being vague, but I have to disagree with the way people convey their reasoning as though any of it were satisfactory at all. Just because a person may dissent doesn't burn logic to the ground so we must all have to start over. So, whatever finish line there is to so much anxiety for answers hardly has an expertise beyond our own thinking (that is, relevant to those participating on this page, our anxiety for answers should accompany more rigor than sticking to some false dissent disguised as a conspiracy theory).

---

Henry Ruark July 31, 2008 10:07 am (Pacific time)

To all: Review of Comments here makes necessary a question: WHY is it that some, especially on Far Right, can never, ever appreciate or admit the key role dissent plays in ALL democratic dialog and discussion ? THAT was what made the basic Federalist Papers so valuable as our Founders worked through all it took to conceive and bring to birth what we've now enjoyed, wonderfully, for more than 200 years. They did not agree on many philosophical and practical choices --and it was reasoned, civilly-stated but, always, intensely-felt dissent that finally delineated what has long ago become a world standard for strong governance process. We need MORE, not less, of that kind of dissent,which is hopefully part of broad dialog presented in this channel.

---

Henry Ruark July 29, 2008 2:15 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Recent similar discussion on several threads has gone to the point of U.S. involvement in wide variety of "dirty tricks" around the world, based on our national interest at cost of all else. Colombia and other S/A nations are a deeply-wounded group long included in those we have so treated. SO here's late word from Common Dreams re one consequence now becoming all too real there: Colombian Indigenous Groups in Danger of Disappearing by Constanza Vieira BOGOTA - The Permanent People’s Tribunal warned in its final statement on Colombia of “the imminent danger of physical and cultural extinction faced by 28 indigenous groups,” adding that 18 of the communities have less than 10 members, “and are suspended between life and death.” The 28 groups in question are the Nukak, Shiripu, Wipibi, Amorúa, Guayabero, Taiwano, Macaguaje, Pisamira, Muinane, Judpa, Yauna, Bara, Ocaina, Dujos, Piaroa, Carabayo, Nonuya, Matapí, Cacua, Kawiyarí, Tutuyo, Tariano, Yagua, Carapaná, Chiricoa, Achagua, Carijona and Masiguare, who live in different parts of this civil war-torn country. “Their disappearance from the face of the earth would constitute, in the 21st century, not only a disgrace for the Colombian state and for humanity as a whole, but genocide and a crime against humanity because of action or failure to act by the institutions of the state in order to help these peoples who are on the verge of disappearing,” says the Permanent People’s Tribunal (PPT) statement, issued last week. Of Colombia’s 43 million people, 1.4 million are indigenous, according to the latest census, from 2005, which counted 87 different native groups, although Colombia’s National Indigenous Organisation (ONIC) identifies 102 distinct communities. The difference is accounted for by the fact that the census grouped linguistic families as a single ethnic group. The PPT, which investigates and tries human rights violations around the world, is the successor to the Russell Tribunal, which in the 1960s investigated war crimes committed during the 1965-1975 Vietnam War, and in the 1970s investigated crimes against humanity committed by U.S.-backed dictatorships in Latin America. Also known as the International War Crimes Tribunal, the Russell Tribunal was named for its organiser, British philosopher, activist and pacifist Bertrand Russell.

---

Vic July 25, 2008 5:27 pm (Pacific time)

"Gods of Chaos"..your nickname says all that needs to be said....how old are you..12? ..13? Puberty can be tough , especially for a guy who is unsure about his sexuality. (Rememeber..delete the history thing so your mom doesnt know you are looking at porn on her comp)

---

Godsofchaos July 25, 2008 3:16 pm (Pacific time)

"surely a better approach than our continuing drive for empire at any cost, fueled by oil obtained in any way we can maneuver or manipulate."Henry Ruark Because clearly we should let Mideast go full scale war mode and go on a holy Jihad and fight amongst themselves would defiantly would not rise the price of gas. Do you enjoy your life style Ruark? Yes it isn't idealistic but nations need resources (most wars are fought over those resources)and unfortunately our world has a limited amount of resources. So at least be honest and not act like we can just walk away unharmed. Side note: As for IDing myself I said it once and I'll say it again..."You wanted my ID so here it is. My name is Nate I am a descendant of Sir Francis Darke. I am a professional treasure hunter. You should know about me. I had a news reporter follow my exploits. She even helped me fight off pirates. Sully is my co-worker and helps me search the globe for gold. I have several skills such as firearms training, can climb almost any surface and can read Spanish. In my last adventure we searched for the lost treasure of El Dorado. It was a statue and not a city. To make a long story short it ended up being cursed and made people monsters but who knows maybe next time I finally hit the jackpot. You never know what you will stumble across in uncharted lands."Godsofchaos

---

Godsofchaos July 25, 2008 2:56 pm (Pacific time)

"SO go worship your Gods of Chaos"Henry Ruark For the dark Gods!!!!!! (Summons bloodthirstier) Henry Ruark and(*^'s about how bloodthirstier needs to ID himself. All fellow cultists knows what follows next. ;)

---

Henry Ruark July 25, 2008 2:09 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Perhaps greatest safeguard left to us in this perilous world is the tremendous physical and fiscal dimensions demanded for any possible way to produce still more atomic weapons. In all truth, few nations we know now have anywhere near that known-demanded capability nor are in process of building both it AND the hugely complex and enormous-cost bomber fleet to deliver it if and when ever achieved. We do well to keep close track of whomever is using basic ingredients, but we have no inborne American right to deny others the proven cost and other capabilities of any peaceful nuclear energy development. S), what to do ? Obviously this requires an international agency, developed, supported and mutually governed by all, such as the United Nations was intended to accomplish. Again, any rational, reasonable approach demands return to fundamentals here, too, as for our own American Constitutional programs. It is ironic in the extreme that both levels of major issues and problems have been caused by the same basic self-seeking neocon cabals --and that may well be a fine working clue as to what action we now must take to defend not only our nation but the rest of the world, too --surely a better approach than our continuing drive for empire at any cost, fueled by oil obtained in any way we can maneuver or manipulate.

---

Henry Ruark July 25, 2008 10:39 am (Pacific time)

GChaos et al: Your cognomen, sir, tells all...without any further revelation needed, except your grossly incompetent and always uninformed comments. You attack Marine Tim, yet we are not privileged to know what, if any, service-time you have given to our nation. You find it easy to distort and denigrate what is reported here, but I never see from you any further documentation from any reliable source(s), supporting and strengthening what you state, via some other more reasonable, rational mind laid out on the public record. SO go worship your Gods of Chaos --how fitting and revealing that turns out to be here ! OR you could always do your own Op Ed, if capable, with due necessity for supporting documentation from the real world --might offset all that whispering-guidance stuff from your Gods/of/C.

---

Godsofchaos July 25, 2008 8:52 am (Pacific time)

"These are what budding war profiteers in the U.S. continue to refer to as "nuclear weapons"Tim King You do realize the main reason most countries don't have the bomb is the uranium enrichment process not the bomb itelf. So if the figure out how to enrich uranium for nuke planets than they can also make a bomb.

---

sts July 24, 2008 8:16 pm (Pacific time)

last post for tonite. the war on terror is a joke, the same way the war on drugs and poverty are a joke. It is to make the elite have more power and money.. I feel sorry for those who dont understand this. turn off the tv!

---

sts July 24, 2008 8:11 pm (Pacific time)

an attack on Iran is imminent. I am seeing the same propaganda and lies that I saw before the Iraq invasion. I hoped it not true, but it is becoming quite evident. Thanks for the article of truth tho, something we rarely see.

---

sts July 24, 2008 8:09 pm (Pacific time)

Tim King. even tho I agree 100% with your thoughts, and I applaud you for sharing them, I am perplexed at your censorship. I believe it is wrong to not post other opinions. But, great article and keep up the good work spreading the truth. :-)

---

Godsofchaos July 24, 2008 3:44 pm (Pacific time)

"As for the fantasy law of sedition that you blabbed about; you are really a total nut job. Go back to your soap operas now you little Nazi freak. Funny that changing one letter on your names makes it "Liar", how appropriate is that?"Tim King What the h*)l happened Tim King? You used to be nicer(like I should talk) and now you tear into people. Note: This is a real concern not a put down. I noticed you have changed alot.

---

Godsofchaos July 24, 2008 1:37 pm (Pacific time)

"It won't mean jack if we are ever invaded and treated half as badly in this country as we treat others."Tim King Wake up and smell the coffe Tim. We as americans strive to be one of the nicest invading forces in the world. If russia invaded us do you think they would worry about collatoral damage like america does? One of my main beefs is we are harder on our soliders when it comes to accidentailly killing a non-combatent then any nation in the world. So before you start mouthing off about the U.S. miltary and follow it up with I am a marine speech. Go study other countries tactics and ROE and come back and say being invaded by America is equivenlt to being invaded by commuinst russia. The Germans fled to us near the collpse of NAZI germany for a reason.

---

Godsofchaos July 24, 2008 1:20 pm (Pacific time)

"This is a point made extremely clear at the end of the movie Charlie Wilson's War. The United States could have thrown a few million dollars into Afghanistan to help it rebuild from a ten year war, but instead we allowed the warlords to resume fighting for control of this historic, contested country."Tim King Yes because cearly throwing few million at a hell hole solves all problems in said country. By the way Tim why dont you go study Afirca for a while and come back and say with a straight face that a couple million would have solved Afghanistan problems. Also never use a moive for a historical source. I have never seen a moive competely 100% accurate on historical events.Afghanistan problems too complex for a simple rebuilding to solve their problems. "Iran has done little to any western country that could ever be viewed as hostile, and Iran has never attacked the United States. Our problems with Iran have all taken place within their own borders, not in ours."Tim King I assuming your point is that the united states should not interfer with governmets or groups who have not attacked us on our soil. If so I like to point out that USSR never attacked our soil. Just because they can't attack America land with ground troops doesn't mean they are not a theart. nuceler tiped ICBMS have change the world tim.

---

james July 24, 2008 11:59 am (Pacific time)

So What you are saying Mr. King is that supporting Israel is a sham? that they are not worth the ground the politicians circled on a map and gave to them? you do not think they deserve their nation? Also What is your opinionon the 2005 speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the General Assembly of the UN that his divine mandate was to prepare the way for the return of the Mahdi? Consequently doesn't that mean that there would need to be an apocalypse before his return? could their refusal to back down from enriching thier uranium be tied to the fact that Nuclear weapons would be the best casuse of such an apocalypse. Especially if they could also destroy Israel their largest enemy in their region?

---

Henry Ruark July 23, 2008 7:47 am (Pacific time)

Praying et al: You may be praying, but I'm not so sure for-what... Worldwide interpretation varies here, but view is growing that Bush-bluff got called, and that world opinion may well win out to prevent this catastrophe for all. IF Israel does attack, now it will surely be as our provocateur, with Bush-promise of support...sound familiar from past pain and blood and huge costs ? SO do more than pray: Sound off loud--and-clear to your Congress and anywhere else, decrying our deeply distorted diplomacy now seen as simple cover for further bully-boy approach to developing nation.

---

Praying for Peace July 21, 2008 7:05 am (Pacific time)

This past weekend was the turning point for war. This is why the U.S. met with Iran. The green light was given today to bring this to an end. That happened when Iran said no to freezing their enrichment program. Any day now Israel will attack, it will not be after Novembers election. I predict that as soon as the house and senate greenlight drilling offshore, that will be the greenlight.

---

Vic July 20, 2008 9:51 pm (Pacific time)

Polls are meaningless when you are dealing with an uninformed populace...whether voluntarily naive or misled. Unfortunately, most of us Americans fall into those categories. No one wants to believe that we are the bad guys..it is easier to just ignore the truth or parrot what we hear on ABC/CBS/NBC.

---

Henry Ruark July 20, 2008 1:02 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Re polls --even very best, with unquestionable method and same for interpretation-- fail to give us workable guide(s) for what is right-to-do, based on true American values and undistorted understandings. I seem to recall similar poll-results highly prominent prior to our surely-now very erroneous preemptive attack on Iraq, set up that way via very clear "imperial presidency" now very deep in doo-doo and desperate consequence. SO Iran seeks nuclear-club membership; neither U.S. nor Israel can deny or defeat that without revealing own despair for honest, democratic further effort; i.e., surrender to the force uber alles principle for own survival. IF we at that last stage, then little we can think, write, do or conceive, except to pray and seek shelter from inevitable ashes-and-radiation soon over so much of the world that it might as well be global... Are you willing to settle for that ? Many millions worldwide believe we can still, somehow, work to bring rationality and honest, cooperative reason into play around a table open to widespread public understanding, and seeking something other than Mutual Atomic Destruction --such a flawed policy that even the Reagan-reactionaries had to abandon it. Even strongest advocates of democracy will admit that on occasion the majority may be out of joint with realities, and that wise participants in any governing system will need to make sensible, common sense provision to provide for that, and perhaps prevent disaster due to human errors in both communications and the resulting understandings. Indeed, every modern religion is built on a foundation of such principle.

---

Latest Poll July 20, 2008 12:35 pm (Pacific time)

It appears that as per the below Rasmussen poll, considered one of the most accurate posters, many are in a 12% minority: Nearly eight out of 10 Americans (78%) think Iran is likely to soon develop nuclear weapons, and over half say the Iranians will not halt their program no matter who is elected president, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Forty-three percent (43%) of Likely Voters think it is possible to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but 52% believe Iran is not likely to stop if McCain is elected to the White House. Even more (61%) say the same if Obama becomes president. Sixty-three percent (63%) say the goal of Iran’s uranium enrichment program is to develop nuclear weapons, as opposed to 12% who believe the Iranian government’s claim that it is for energy purposes alone. It seems pretty likely that when the House and Senate dop their offshore drilling obstruction, then if Iran does not allow UN inspectors in, then hold on, the and^%and will hit the fan. No amount of debate, reasoned or otherwise, will halt an attack on Iran's nuke facilities, the underground ones will be taken out by our bunker buster bombs. That is what they were developed for.

---

Henry Ruark July 20, 2008 9:29 am (Pacific time)

Pete et al: Won't presume to speak for "slippy", who is on vacation. Your key phrase is: "It's circularly self defeating, not to mention self refuting..." whether intentionally characterizing yours-here or so written from long damaging habit. Phrase unavoidably struck me from 50 editing years, which is why I cite it since it so accurately characterizes what Tim's patience has allowed to be presented here. But time, space, attention and patience of many others also possibly suffering. SO, for me, good-by Pete; hope you may recover from that demonstrated circularity and again become able to compose yourself, in all good faith and perhaps even some more understandable common sense.

---

Peter July 20, 2008 12:11 am (Pacific time)

Okay, slippy, you don't need those gloves on, just give it a rest for minute, I won't hurt you. Comparative moral theory suggests that cultural relativism is unapproachable from different cultural belief systems, i.e., "Cultural relativism is inductively true," as so based on an inductive justification for itself. It's circularly self defeating, not to mention self refuting, because we do see with our own eyes whether or not there is anyone to tell us what we are seeing, i.e., objectivity is necessary for any sort of correctness that can be held as "right." So, there already has been a great deal of labor for things that apparently few intellectuals, especially those honorable truth believers who also believe something is right, and that no right can uphold what is wrong (which leads us to examine more than our own vision, more than our own beliefs, and more than our own science fiction fantasies). I have already stated my belief about foundationalism, which includes the "Founders" (the dear intellects we adore who, thanks to our hero Ben Franklin, relayed European beliefs back to us, here in the "New World"). I'm not going to raise that nerve from your apparently lost tensions of aggravation with fellow intellectuals. But you're avoiding the deeper analysis of how cultures survive and how cultures dearly leave the present. Why? Why do cultures fail, and how could a culture both fail and not fail, unless the seeing had been so rigorously conditioned to belief to not see at all? There is where the contention lay in the tremendous tolerance between opposing belief systems, whose morality is as visible to anyone who sees it (Americans having the prevalence of one internal division of race, and another of language, Spanish). But in Europe, this is just plain ignominy of the rest of the world. That reputation has hit us harder than we like, and our mediation in the world isn't forthcoming of our actual values. But this scourge Europeans have felt from terrorism is nothing new to them, and yet it has clearly been tackled down by our courage to sacrifice probably a lot more than we care to realize (debt for life, what a very odd contradiction to the Islamic belief structure, usury being a vice to them mocked by us who want to stop terrorists that sprout willy nilly from a lot of quasi-intellectual garbage such as yours).

---

Henry Ruark July 19, 2008 7:49 pm (Pacific time)

Peter: You might overcome thos borogoves after all, Pete. Sure hope so...we need all the good faith and deep concern we can muster, from any direction. But watch out for brintlings while you proceed.

---

Peter apologizing again July 19, 2008 12:00 pm (Pacific time)

I mean to make no threats! Please, understand that, but I will give this argument a rigor you can't give, and I know that. Men forced into terrorist acts due save their family is not something science fiction even dreams up (not to my knowledge anyway, that being moral knowledge, not merely knowledge for it's so-called "own sake," the very value freedom debates about which lost to ever stronger arguments for applied science). But I really think you are missing the point of the war, especially when confused about the meaning of terrorism (a confusion that resides predominantly in the Middle East by unfortunate victims of our apparently very vengeful stride in reducing one crisis to another...which, by the way, has made me intolerably sick about it. Tim, you asked about what can be analogous to terrorism? Forgive me, did you really ask this? I doubt it, but rather trying the old game of tit for tat. Well, how dare you asking me to justify terrorism? Are you sick, man? Sorry, Henry, I snuck in one while you weren't looking, but then again, babble is insulting. We all want to come out of our fights alive. Doing something about it in the rational direction of ending the fight before we do is the only way to see this war, in my opinion. Imperfect as it may be, we don't look for reasons to go to war, though our strategy of premeditated preemption tastes like it. That's a hard thing for me to digest, too.

---

Henry Ruark July 19, 2008 9:39 am (Pacific time)

Hey, Pete ! Good luck to u, sir, re comment accepted on other sites. Re 50,000-words, that was lame attempt to convey strong distressed feeling demanded while wrestling with your borogoves, despite your careful brittling and brilling, too. "Onto something" is right, including "see with own eyes" for solid fact from reliable source, for own-mind check and response. That's valid dialog, sir, per same pattern as Founders first set up in Federalist Papers. You have quarrel with that, suggest you refer it to them.

---

Henry Ruark July 19, 2008 7:33 am (Pacific time)

Lel., Pete et al: "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths ougabe." ------------ As anoodyne for your brillig attack, see "The Language Instinct"; Steven Pinker;1994; ISBN 0-06-o95833-2. Be careful with those borogoves --they are hell when crossed.

---

Peter July 19, 2008 2:54 am (Pacific time)

First of all, it isn't "Peter et al," just another loop hole for you though, isn't it, to make vast generalizations that actually do harm to your cause (which is irrational). My previous post was only 1200 words, i.e., not 50,000. So, math skills aren't being well employed here either. Also, the paragraphs were not separated, and this is all seemingly a dishonor to you. So, farewell, good luck, and try harder, not faster, next time. -Peter P.S. I will take up this dialogue elsewhere and let you know when I have evidence of a website for it, okay? Honestly, you're on to something good, I believe, and I do share your skepticism, truly I do, but to the extent that you are.

---

Leland North July 18, 2008 1:52 pm (Pacific time)

Most of the comments below, especially by... Hey Leland, go shove it where the sun does not shine, OK?   You stink, your mission stinks, and your threats are nothing but keyboard bravery.  You wouldn't say a word to my face.  For those reading my rant; this is one of those sick puppies that we unfortunately have to share air with.  Sorry you have to read such harsh words from me, but they are nothing next to his, which will never ever see the light of day around here.

Tim King

---

Henry Ruark July 18, 2008 7:58 pm (Pacific time)

Peter et al: Your 50,000-wd. rant reads like you've been sucking again...lemons,most likely. You might wish to trade off the object of your affections for something less stimulating, for which we'll all be thankful.

---

Peter July 18, 2008 4:35 pm (Pacific time)

I thought I was being cliche, but the heap of opposing beliefs wasn't clarified by me and for that I submit to being intellectually inferior to it. Yes, the Gulf War was in 1991, and yes, I have learned to tolerate being called "Dude," but there's no crack and there's no psych eval required: I get frustrated and invigorated simultaneously about issues that I feel deeply about, and I have to ask for other's opinion quite a lot. I was attracted at first by the title of this article, since honor appeals to me. Unfortunately, I have a difficult time dealing with too many opinions, and yet, I try anyway. You ask for facts, not opinions? You ask for facts, sources, etc. You don't ask for opposing views to your own, and in order to fully qualify and defend your own, there's an irresistable appeal to defend what you can, correct? Well, that's what every intelligent person on Earth does the same, get used to it, slippy (a nickname I give to you, dude, don't like it!). Call it the "powers that be" or, "can't beat em then join' em," slogans of not quite passing era of cold war leaders who tried to anticipate the worst in order to avert the worst, following an invasion that threatenned the very same region we have returned to market. Why do we do this? Why do we regulate the market as we do, and why do we peddle to thugs and then kill them? Are they really that stupid? Are we really that irresponsible? You win, now what? What should be done other than anything illegal? Furthermore, what will you do? I can see the Anti-Bush dialogue clearly, so clearly that it is difficult to remain objective, with the fluid like intuitive ease at which we place blame on those we don't want to deal with because it appeals to our otherwise happy jolly time...and believe me, though I am not a pacificist....pacifism is very honorable and often mistaken for silliness (interrupting a fight, for example, merely by distracting attention, but this is not always advisable unless that fight can be contained to a backyard and not leak out over the blame fetish of vicariously blameworthy rumor mills, especially those we like to call "gangs," rather than armies, maybe you know some gang members, and they still don't care what we are doing). You don't know what I mean and you're not asking. And, I as well am not taking enough time to think these "rants" out. So, sorry, really! But, use your logic to the hilt of the paradox that you beg to happen. Are you denyng anything in what we consider to be bona fide history? Probably not, but if I do, what can you do? You'd try to make an example of me and my stupid ignorance of "the facts." it would take time to settle our differences over a history we ultimately wish would end, unless our damn kids don't stop bringing it up. Victims of this, too, would hate us, and they should, and we should help them overcome it by enabling them to rebuild their lives. Hmmm, yes, it almost bears historicist Marxism, STOP, but closer to home, No, not the military industrial complex, and we could run that dialoge for a couple generations until the life is drained out of us (still, a better outcome than nuclear war). Is it really all that unfathomable, or lacking evidence? research this: "Eurabia" Communism doesn't recognize anything as "personal" (nothing as personal as property, including your own skin). You can't reason with communism because it is ultimately a lie about a future that Marx failed to resist, failing to make the correct predictions, but also failing to write the correct history that he studied (England's industrial revolution). Capitalism, on the other hand, doesn't recognize anything as unchanging. Forcing change is anti-intellectual, but so is violence of any kind. Victims in places more than others. Why? Something isn't being settled and we have to pick our friends all the time. That we seek this, it should be understood as admirable, but not stupid. And not the vanity of wanderlust reporters trying to be heros, too. Should I continue to steer this? beggers and thieves? You know the answers, but you need collaboration. You get collaboration, and then you unleash your own Jerry show. Well, I have to say that it's catchy, but also irritating. Question: if you had the opportunity to stop global warming or nuclear war, which would it be? Obviously, it would be nuclear war, and you would want to stop it by all means possible, because you in your wisdom, whatever it was, did have the capacity to stop it. You had the very sharp cutting edge of solutions and you do it. Sure, you might be labelled a false hero, later, as your friends muster resolve on the battlefield of public opinion, but no nuclear war translates to a better success at averting global warming. You think the military industrial complex could just happen without notice by its initiators as their irretrievable error? NO, this is not an argument that I am advocating, but rather one that is being made. You can still do the logic yourself how the alternative would lead. But, of course, there could have been other alternatives, too. There could have been other uncontrollable events. Events go on. That was the think tank subject of the day in 1998, global warming versus nuclear war, and suddenly terrorism "out of nowhere" hits America, three years later following a sereptitious election that is constitutionally valid (a constitution that many would like to change, too, seeing as how the founders never realized that we wouldn't change anything other than the amendments). Kind of got us all at each other's teeth without being given the answers we want. Bush's first election surprised the shit out of me, and I'm no convert, but I grew more skeptical of the intellectual prowess of my own country to fail to do anything about it (notwithstanding even the ignorance of Airports and their personnel, to not once notice the ever watching security police that stood guard at European airports, our peace had been vulnerable, and enemies were watching). So, the legal case, now, of Viacom versus YouTube, apparently over the trafic habits resulting from odd videos in format brand depicting socalled 9/11 conspiracies (also resulting in the retroactive prevention of any crime being induced from them). I have seen the videos on YouTube claiming conspiracy and they just plainly suck. Yeah, sure, I will go, when you grow up. Concluding that, along with my experience, then in 91 and twice now 04 and 06, that the Middle East is not an easy place to live by our standards, I thought: what could our standards contribute and to what extent would that contribution be welcomed? Then, it's the word on the street: Thank you's, or damn its, or adolescents wondering why we don't shoot them like the evil idiots we are supposed to resemble from the stories received from our own country. People are told that their Army is fighting an unjust war (if they can recall what that is, a just war, something you newbies have lost in the chase for evidence of an unjust war, though you never clarify what any just war could possibly be for obvious fear of taking an unpopular side of the events). Maybe, too, there is an unfathomable abyss of narcissism on the part of our current administration (makes me more skeptical, can't process what I cannot fathom). so, let's stop playing intellectual "catch up." Peter

---

Art July 18, 2008 4:27 pm (Pacific time)

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [..]" The government is infested to the core by enemies both foreign and domestic. Anyone who aids and protects them is an accomplice, which the congress has collectively proven to be by not taking any action to remove the criminals from their position. The Kunicich impeachment proceedings etc., are all a show, to make people think somebody is taking action. The corruption runs deep and is age-old. Writing letters to the bought off politicians who have sold you out won't make any difference. http://jahtruth.net/

---

Henry Ruark July 18, 2008 2:35 pm (Pacific time)

Jay et al: Your key-phrase is: "...ultimately the continued existence of extremists allows him to continue the war." Right on, sir, tied tightly to the woking pattern permeating all else in the Bush cabal-workings: the "Imperial Presidency", with the erroneous concept of the Big Boss as Commander in Chief of the entire nation and NLY arbiter of freedoms, liberty and decision on ANYthing --so long as "the war on terrorism" continues. Recall recent stumble by McCain re "100 years", whether occupation or combat; and similar foux pas via his consultants, including Gramm and others. Your participation richly appreciated, in best meaning of that term.

---

Jay July 18, 2008 1:50 pm (Pacific time)

Thanks for your article. I am also a vet and left the military in disgust when we bombed brave patriotic Christians in Serbia so that Kosovo was made safe for the KLA, a group with known terrorist ties and its allies. Since coming to office, Bush has encouraged Islamic extremism not only in the former Yugoslavia but also in places like Indonesia. Only a complete idiot could believe that the traitorous Bush really is trying to fight extremism. Rather he is willing to encourage fanatic extremists to disrupt countries that are too independant (as Serbia was) while he never allows our troops to fight free of restrictions in places like Iraq because ultimately the continued existence of extremists allows him to continue the war. All the neo-con idiot America-haters who constantly whine about how Americans aren't willing to commit to an all out fight against our enemies - why don't you look in the mirror and ask yourself why Bush has subjected our military to so many restrictions, why we still allow immigrants from countries that hate us, why we didn't split Iraq and Afghanistan up and be done with it? Oh yes, that would hurt corporate profits; only middle-class America must sacrifice for the war, not Bush and his corporate buddies. You idiots aren't fooling us- you are to blame for launching a half-assed effort at war.

---

Henry Ruark July 18, 2008 1:41 pm (Pacific time)

Peter et al: Sir, you addressed me: "I may not return to this until the facts have spoken for themselves, Henry." Don't bother --facts already so deep they litter millions of pages everywhere, for those who will but seek 'em out and read...then think. Re rest of your rant, heard better in close contact with clients when Chicago wife was child psychiatrist...about same level, too, and equally unbraidable and abstruse. Whatever you are ingesting, check dose level --or is it already too late ??

---

Peter July 18, 2008 11:43 am (Pacific time)

Okay, Saf, you picked out some historical facts out of a grab bag of facts, just admit it! It's natural for us to do so, too, in order to justify our claims, but yours are not quite relevant, here (as having historical precedent, e.g., Yugoslavia, no more peaceful than the days before WWI?, not a precursor to WWII? and the mess that the Empires left behind?; or further back in historical vanity we can reglorify the strange character of Alexander the Great, etcetera....CAREFUL, this is sarcasm and I mean to make the point that history is no more alive than we are, alive to facts NOW, on EARTH, and observed by noone else and nowehere else and at no other time). We don't have a very well known target on ourselves until we sypathize with our murderers (otherwise called the copenhagen syndrome). I will say it again: history is no more alive than we are, and you better know who you are!

I grew up during the Viet Nam war, a boy, and none of it made sense, and I had no care in the world about it, except mommy and her fears of her husband's sister's husband being drafted to it. I met him, too, but briefly, and only about three times, he was smiling, but deadly silent...a trait that I had unfortunately admired because he didn't nag at me. Now, myself, a veteran of the Gulf War, student of world history and the relevance of Western philosophy, having argued to death the already dead horse comparison of the two wars, I am stunned in misery over the sheer dirth of optimism of people who merely place themselves in the gap and cry mercy for intellectual suicide, which is precisely the problem with history and historiographers have made ample cash from that fact, alone (Hallmark cards to Nietzsche and the Hegel he should have aimed at, rather than discard the tradition, rationalism, that gave him his identity, one that Kant would have easilly resisted, but regretably was never matsered by Nietzsche because of a likely dialect personal issue: "superman among slave morality"). Silly! Tuche mon frere, aber danke Ich nicht. I will steer in English, alright? Just let me steer, here, buddy! The scales are NOW, not tomorrow after this ride is over.

No, philosophers are not the subject, and no, history is nolonger foundationally strong at all (foundationalism has been reliably proven false, indeed, if not catastrophic to itself, to include work in the lab - even evolution erases its evidence whereas nuclear war most certainly will not). There is no failure to communicate and there is no legality for pragmatism either. Why even tout and dodge the Holocaust issue? Perhaps, to set off a wake of hsitprical ghosts to antagonie our friends down there where culture started for all historians? There are absolutely solid reasons for government that governments, weak and strong, could take to secure their own futures in a world of competitors for survival. Unleashing a flood of lies on behalf of closet psychophant worship is not an option for most rationalists who are also realists....We try to make an impression with facts and with data, but the reasoning to a kid cannot be a textbook. Sorry, a kid will prefer jumping off garages as I did, too, or something similiarly talented but often dangerous that should startle parents and wonder their whole lives why they had children in the first place. But frustrating the issues with all this is....a conspiracy? Americans wouldn't tolerate terrorism [PERIOD], not in their own country by their own citizens, and not by anyone with the greatest of most convincing arguments to do so. Hence, it comes elsewhere beyond us and has a plan, and we intend to stop it. Clear enough? So, thankfully, we are not laying waste to trees for the sake of banter about genuinely lethal liars in the genepool whom we award the title "fit for life and fit to continue living in our decent planet", or even adding apologies for what our grandparents did during their honeymoon. Killers are no mistake when they are sober, brain washed, anxious to die dumbies catching bullets with their heads. No genuine soldier for a nation's cause would ever be such a fluke of humanity.

Gasp...sigh...cough, cough...sip...breath in and out...hmmmm...

Tim, Love to YOu and your mission...and to everyone here. I may not return to this until the facts have spoken for themselves, Henry. But, man, history is deep, deep, deep...in the misery of the past. So, my friend, fellow optimists, and fellow comrades at arms, you already know what you are fighting for. Don't let the 1% magotry of it all fool you about what the 95% peasantry persist to whine about (their lack of a role to play, perhaps, or not enough time looking at the classifieds for employment, perhaps?).

I have witnessed more bombings at weddings nowehere else in the world than in Iraq. WEDDINGS!!!!!!! Thankfully, I will not experience it, before I at least try to stop it!

STOP TERRORISM or STOP TERRORISM. There's your choice in life from now on! Or, marry a fairy and be on your way, little dumplings. You're so cute, smoochies smoochies..

Tim King: Dude, that is one bizarre comment if there ever was.  So regarding terrorism, is that like a nation's military attacking unilaterally when they are in the wrong and stacking all the peace in the world against bad intel, then attacking and killing many thousands before saying, "darn, I guess all the WMD's just didn't exist after all..."I think that is terrorism and guess who the culprits are?  That's right baby- bingo.  We did this, they didn't do anything at all, just like Iran.  We are the guys in black, they are not.  The good that has come from the fighting in Iraq comes from the heart and soul of individuals in our military, the best in the world, the group with individuals trying to right onr mistakes and truly and legitimately help people.   It has nothing to do with politicians; it is purely human.  For you and others like you, you just need the word, the label.  It used to be "Communists" and today it is "Terrorists" and it is all semantics, word games.  Terrorists are people who invade, overtake and kill innocent people.  

So you are a Gulf War Vet, and you saw a ton of bombs go off at Iraqi weddings?  Most people consider the Gulf War to have taken place in '91.  Can you explain that, or are you smoking crack?  I can't be sure, but I think you are smoking crack.

---

Henry Ruark July 18, 2008 10:58 am (Pacific time)

To all: "Authority comes from knowledge, not vhemence. There is no substitute for a testing range of insight and experience," --Charles Poore. That's why journalists seek reliable sources, then share with readers. Denial of that basic principle is what brings on error, loss of basic principles, and irreparable damage to integrity...which is why we go the "see with own eyes" route, with "evaluate with own mind" as clincher. Just in case there's still any misunderstanding or any possible personal-denial on that basic foundation for open, honest, democratic dialog here. IF you do not recognize Charles Poole, try simple Google-search ! Might help on your own understandings of our role in this channel.

---

Henry Ruark July 18, 2008 9:55 am (Pacific time)

To all: Your comments make clear where many milliohs of Americans really reside on this question of patriotism, and dissent as essential to any pretense of democracy. Re "Anon", integrity for sure, but do NOT confuse us with msmedia, please...

---

Anonymous July 18, 2008 8:36 am (Pacific time)

Excellent article! You hit it right on the dot! It is refreshing to see that there is still some sense of integrity left in mainstream media.

---

Vic July 18, 2008 8:30 am (Pacific time)

Just wanted to add that Peters statement that Islam has an "all or none living on earth under one God" view....Are you familiar with Christianity?? There is no pluralism...I know of no other religion that believes that their God (supposedly the source of all Love and Goodness) comes back to Earth only after millions have died from war, disease and famine and EVERYONE remaining that does not join the religion is cast into a lake of fire where they do not die, but burn in agony forever. Mormons believe that they are Gods chosen and only a Mormon can enter the Beverly Hills part of heaven. Jews believe they are chosen above all other people, Seventh Day Adventists believe the same, Pennecostals believe that unless you speak in tongues, you are not truly "saved", thereby saying that only Pennecostals are saved.. I think religion does a lot more harm than good sometimes, as it is another thing that divides people and causes friction and intolerance.

---

Vic July 18, 2008 8:20 am (Pacific time)

This is one of the best and most insightful articles I have ever read. People who really are patriots and love this country and what it is supposed to stand for, are not afraid of self-examination and correction. We need to be willing to act on our convictions, even at personal risk ...if not, then we have to question the depth and sincerity of our convictions, or if we really have any at all. Thanks again, Tim!

---

Henry Ruark July 18, 2008 7:38 am (Pacific time)

To all: Sure test of the paragon President some describe is surely preparations vs another 9/11 attack. See your hometown daily for editorial comment now broadly published generally nationwide via ongoing national survey data. Here's sample today from my h/t/daily, REGISTER-GUARD, Eugene, Oregon: (Lead and excerpt) "Almost seven years after the terorist attacks of Sept. 11,2001, it's hard to believe the nation still is not adequately prepared to defend against a smuggled nuclear bomb or biological warfare. "Two and a half years ago, the bipartisan c9/11 Commission identified those and an appalling long list of other needed homeland security shortcomings in the wake of the 2001 attacks. "People are not paying attention," commission Chairman Thomas Kean warned. "God help us if we have another attack." ============= "In 2003, Presiden Bush invaded Iraq to protect the United States from weapons of mass destruction that did'nt exist. Five years later, hehas failed to adequately protect this country from the very real threat of smuggled weapons of mass destruction." ========== ("See with own eyes" on R/G website; link-to-come, now checking for accuracy. We await similar reports from other U.S. daily edit statements; send us yours.)

---

Henry Ruark July 18, 2008 7:00 am (Pacific time)

James, Tyler et al: Yours purely, simply, ONLY personal feeling, differing from reliable opinion informed by factual study --which is what journalists do. From what base of experience and training do you speak, other than your own PERSONAL opinion...differing from that expressed publicly from study and wide diversity of choices. IF you undertake to declare yourself publicly, you then find yourselves in painful position of having to prove up what you state, usually via a more authoritative and deeply informed source voicing same factual information. That's how honest, open democratic dialog works, with pattern set originally via the Founders themselves, in the Federalist Papers. SO quote, cite, link us to YOUR sources, for "see with own eyes" evaluation via their own minds for our readers. Otherwise, guys, your participation richly appreciated, but recognized for what it truly is: personal feeling, honestly felt and honorable even if overly expressed, but still: PERSONAL ONLY. It is truly our inabilities to separate, recognize and appreciate facts from feelings that distorts and perverts our political protocol and process in this nation NOW, greatly aggravated by the permanent political campaign built on confrontation at all costs, and fueled into damaging fire by complicit profit-motivated media compliance. See mine re real patriot, guys: documentation in depth on request to Tim with ID.

---

Saf July 18, 2008 12:56 am (Pacific time)

"What I think most people are missing is the fact that Islam harbors animosity toward any other religion" What a silly statement. Lets consider some facts: [1] Islam is a quarter of the Earth's population - to call them all extremists and intolerant is just plain irrational. [2] History has shown that Islam not only tolerated other religions but protected them. The jews consider it their "Golden Age" when Islam ruled Southern Europe - and they were free from persecution and their religion and culture flourished. [3] Spain, for example, was under muslim rule for 600 years - and yet the people were not forcibly converted to Islam. They maintained and enjoyed their religion. [4] Today - christian, sikh, hindu, jewish minorities live in muslim nations and are free to practise their religion. Islam clearly states that is is not permissible, nor possible, to force beople to believe in anything. You can talk to people, reason with them, inform them - but at the end of the day , belief is a matter of choice. Yes there are intolerant extremists in Islam - they are called wahabis, aka Taliban. But for many years these people have enjoyed the support of the US and my (British) governments. 6 months before 9/11 - George Bush was sending money to the Taliban - go figure. And despotic Islamic rulers? You mean Saudi, Egypt, Yemen Jordan, Kuwait, etc? The ones that are being propped up by the US? It would be funny - if it wasnt so tragic. And there are also christian, hindu and jewish extremists causing havoc in the world. These are the people we have to stand against - not denigrate entire religions. Should we call Christianity a barbarous religion - because entire nations were converted to it by force? (Eg Phillippines, Native Americans, etc)? I dont think so.

---

Sam July 17, 2008 11:43 pm (Pacific time)

Where precisely is the proof you have that the weapons do not exist?

---

Peter July 17, 2008 11:22 pm (Pacific time)

What I think most people are missing is the fact that Islam harbors animosity toward any other religion (to include the other nations and their laws). It's nearly saying "all or none" shall live on Earth under one God (the pluralism of Christians is highly commendable over Islam, but opposing metaphysicians can all disagree on the creation of oil, something no kid should have any genuine interest in producing). So, all this talk about who is at fault, or who is not at fault, comes down to a lot of arm chair warriors trying to beguile intellectuals who actually get paid to fight them? Politics among our world's international anarchy cannot be anything short of deceptive and untrustworthy, yet we travel and report on it anyway as if deserving more? We're entering a "save yourself" generation of vicarious problems resulting from a great deal of haste on everyone's part.

---

Tyler July 17, 2008 11:08 pm (Pacific time)

Also keep up the good work, we enjoy reading your articles even though we don't live in Oregon anymore. Its always nice to see both sides of the coin especially when WWIII is just around the corner.

---

Tim King July 17, 2008 10:12 pm (Pacific time)

I was a U.S. Marine and I have served my country.  I honor and respect my nation but I get on my knees for NO COUNTRY ever and, I think the day I owe thanks to Israel will never, ever arrive. What a joke.

A country is a piece of land plotted out on a map by politicians.  It won't mean jack if we are ever invaded and treated half as badly in this country as we treat others. I think that if you believe a word you speak, that you are probably a criminal yourself or it wouldn't make any sense to you.  It is one thing to have a blind eye or a small IQ, but you are working well after all the hard data here.  Everyone knows Bush is operating in an illegal capacity; heck he even had bis brother steal the election as the Florida gov.  I have plenty of Jewish friends who agree with every word I say and who have perfect respect for people of all faiths.  I love my fellow Americans, and I am patriotic but not proud of many things <i>about</i> my country.  It takes a real man to call out what isn't right, and a mindless nodding puppet to take your side of the argument, "yeah Bush is great, we're winning in Iraq, Afghanistan's failure is the UN's fault."  What a crock you offer.  I have been in Afghanistan and I was there for a while.  Our forces are not adequately supplied and it has not a damned thing to do with the UN, it has everything to do with the Bush Administration.

It is only a tiny pocket of fools who will stand here and blast these false accusations against Iran.  Honestly, with people of your mentality in the mix, we should be thankful we have kept WWIII from happening yet.  Israel's leaders are now operating a rogue government and the billions if not trillions of dollars that U.S. taxpayers have had to give Israel over the years have only made Americns live at a lower level and the world hates us because of our stupid blind support of Israel.  If they hadn't occupied their country by terrorism, if it even is their country, then it could have at least had a chance.  If Roosevelt would have survived and if Truman had not gone into office, a whole lot of costly political mistakes might have been avoided.  All Israel has ever meant to the U.S. is heartache.

---

Tyler July 17, 2008 10:05 pm (Pacific time)

Well its true we don't need to attack Iran out of defense, don't make the mistake that we can't do it. We haven't even used our most advanced weapons systems in the war on terror yet. Do we have the resources to develop a government in Iran and keep the peace in the wake of an invasion? No. Do we have the power to make the Iranians wish we did? Absolutely.

---

James July 17, 2008 9:01 pm (Pacific time)

It seems absurd to to me for you to call the U.S. and Israel bully Nations whose governments are illegel when the truth of the matter is you should be down on your knees thanking Israel and your president, the leader of the best nation in the world, for doing all in their power to keep you safe with the freedom to write such a false uneducated artivle. Pres. Bush went to war with Iraq because the foreign policy dictated the it was needed. which if you were aware of anything was something you favorite president mr clinton admitted his regime should have done. that forgein policy mandated its necessity. out vountry hasn't been attacked since 2001. We are also winning in Iraq forging a democracy that is now a western ideals societ. their people have a better outlook for the future than americans. on the other hand in Afaganistan where the UN is running the show the war is being lost. the truth is only we have the capabilty to do what is right. we are doing what is right. because it is being done you and me can feel safe to go anywhere and write anything even the anti american and jewish propoganda u seem fond of!

---

Henry Ruark July 17, 2008 8:23 pm (Pacific time)

Liar Bitar et al: Your cover name gives you away at once, even without distorted/perverted/malicious personal attack. You nor all others like you cannot deny the historical fact and documentation cited and easily available, so all you have left is what you use, for obvious propaganda and attack purposes. That's precisely where the current debacle in the East came from, totalling and wihout question driven by rapacious special interests seeking control of honorably nationalized oil for their own private-corporation and their own national-interest profit. Read sections given in cited report re the 1953 CIA coup, and the genesis from which it came, in British conquistador empire-building, and compare Mid East/nation situations with our own vs British in 1776, for somewhat less distorted view of realities then, mirroring realities now. No question here from which direction the threat to world peace and order cometh, for those who can read, then think with the facts fully available from indisputable sources.

---

Anonymous July 17, 2008 7:16 pm (Pacific time)

Anyone who suggests attacking any country when we are spread out in two existing wars needs to be taken out and beaten. Then they need to be hogtied and dropped off in Israel, preferably from at least 5,000 feet.

---

Liam Bitar July 17, 2008 6:37 pm (Pacific time)

Interesting article (and it reads as we have been told). It shows that you have not traveled to Iran nor had the chance to talk and learn from the Iranians regarding how many would feel about your take on history of not just Iran but even your own country. Have you ever attended college? I understand you were educated in the LAUSD, so that does explain alot regarding your limited knowledge in this matter. Tell me Mr. King, do you also feel that the Holocaust is nothing more than a myth [as does the Iranian leadership]? How about the overwhelming evidence of Iran having a documented history, even by their own acknowledgement, of funding Islamic terrorism?
In any event, it is the relationship between Iran and the Islamic Jihad which poses the most danger. One should not underestimate Hamas, but Hamas acts first and foremost according to its own narrow interests. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad is a puppet in the hands of Iran. If and when Iran decides to explode the peace process, one should be aware that it has the tools to carry out this mission, namely, through the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization. It is a fearless, ruthless, fanatic, extremist organization which does not hesitate to do whatever is ordered. Whether Iran indeed wants this to happen is a question which remains unanswered, but they are enamored with naive people like you to help spread the propaganda, and that is why a concerted effort to see boycotts of all who support terrorist acts against the U.S. and it's allies has been underway. Hopefully next year, a sedition act will be passed and it will be made retroactive, and that severe consequences are available for those who aid and abet the terrorist acts against us. You would agree with a law like that would you not Mr. King? Hoorah.

 Tim King: Actually, I have been conversing with several people from Iran and I have been reading every book I can get my hands on.  I hear parts for some weapons that have killed our soldiers were manufactured in the U.S., I guess that means we should attack who... ourselves?  Suggesting that somebody would be less smart because they were raised in Los Angeles is really stupid, really stupid.  Yes, I did go to college by the way; Cuesta College in San Luis Obispo, California. 

The President of Iran did not deny the Holocaust either, and the Iranian government just ran a 30-part series on the Holocaust that the government sponsored.  Do you know what that means?  It means that your stupid little drivel of a lie is losing steam there Liam.  You need to lose the hate in your heart and not live life fearful of your own shadow.  Iran is no threat; people like you are the threat.

As for the fantasy law of sedition that you blabbed about; you are really a total nut job.  Go back to your soap operas now you little Nazi freak.    Funny that changing one letter on your names makes it "Liar", how appropriate is that?

 

 

---

Henry Ruark July 17, 2008 6:07 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Do you ever "walk back the cat" on your historical conceptions influencing your thinking NOW on major issues ? That phrase is CIA-slang for seeking out after the event what it was that brought it on to the point of demanding action. Try that one re the 1953 initiation of Iran-Contra, the Iraq "preemptive war" without rational reason, and the current Iran-bombing threat. Nothing like "walking back the cat", when you are guided by such solid sources as given here.

---

Henry Ruark July 17, 2008 4:36 pm (Pacific time)

To all: No true patriot, in these first years of the 21st Century, can any longer declare "MY country, right or wrong !" Rational, reasonable honest, open and democratic dissent has always been the other side of that American coin, ever since Washington's day, often so-stated throughout our long history by unchallengeable patriots known for their own demonstration of that inestimable virtue. That single selfish and symbolic action ("...right OR wrong !") has become entirely "unsustainable" in a world now tied tightly moment to moment via Internet, television, radio, millions of pages published widely well distributed even to the most remote peoples --and facing the woes and rapidly multiplying disasters coming due from unconscionable plundering by private interests intent only on their single god of "profit". Iraq and Iran mirror the absolute monuments of the several sides to this equation impossible of solution. For deeply depressing details of the "1953 CIA coup in Iran and the Roots of Middle East Terror", here's a "see with own eyes" link: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9479.html For still more extremely illuminating detail, "see with own eyes" this one: "Why Isn't Iraq in the 2008 Election ?" at:www.alternet.org/module/printversion/78408 This one is special report by Noam Chomsky, worldfamed cognitive scientist, whose March 8th statement has proven extreme prescience on events since. Both are cited here for your evaluatin by your own mind, to check out accuracy and insights shared here by Tim and others. SO Go "see with own eyes", and you may find the blinders snatched away.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.