Bernice: "Im starting to disbelieve everything you say"

Don't be so coy. You have to believe something before you can start disbelieving it.

To be sure, the Talmudic sources are clear that the life of a Jewish woman whose pregnancy endangers her takes precedence over that of her unborn when there is no way to preserve both lives. (That is why Agudath Israel, while we oppose Roe v. Wade's effective "abortion on demand," has not and would never favor a wholesale ban on abortion.) And, while the matter is not free from controversy, there are rabbinic opinions that allow abortion when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the mother's health. But those narrow exceptions do not translate into some unlimited "mother's right" to "make her own reproductive choices" - the position Hadassah enthusiastically trumpets.

Moreover, in the specific context of "intact dilation and extraction" - to use The Times' preferred nomenclature - Jewish law certainly confers no right to kill a live baby whose head, or most of whose body, has already emerged. Indeed, once birth has already occurred, Jewish law makes clear, the newborn child has no less right to live than does the mother. Stated simply, what the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits is, in the eyes of Jewish law, little if anything short of murder.

Nothing, of course, prevents a Jew, or Jewish organization or rabbi, from ignoring the teachings of the Jewish religious tradition.

But intellectual integrity, if nothing else, should prevent anyone from misrepresenting the content of a law, or what Jewish tradition has to say about killing an unborn child, or a born one.

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Partial_-_Birth_-Abortion-.asp

The Usurper: I believed you had some credibility, now I don't believe a damn thing you are saying....is that good enuff?

Bernice: Not good enough, because I don't actually believe you. lol

An Arab Woman Blues
http://www.arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/

Great blog. Too much truth & wisdom for most of you.

....their lands weren't so devastated, perhaps some Iraqis & Afghanis would come on this international website and defend themselves.

Guess I'll have to take up the slack.

....the Palestinians

Bernice: What I think you have a problem with is that the 'conspiracy's' and secrecy is so big and wide.

But as an example, us British kept secret the existence of our ability to break the enigma code used by the Germans to send commands and positions throughout quite a period of WWII.

The Usurper: It's what she says....

"the second thing which is most interesting, is that the US occupation forces are very well aware that the police is infiltrated right to the core by the most criminal and sectarian elements of Iraqi society. Yet despite this obvious affiliation, it seems that the Americans want to turn the puppet security forces into some obedient patriotic Iraqi nationals. Which clearly is not the case.
I argue that the Americans want to very much keep the sectarian nature of the security forces and this shall be explained later on...

.....- which brings me to the fourth point -- the Americans are very well aware of this double bind. Namely on the one hand the Shiite sectarian nature of the forces they unleashed with their occupation and on the other the paving of the way for Iran's subtle and not so subtle influence and control over Iraqi affairs, politics and society...

- so my fifth point is a question that I and other Iraqis keep asking ourselves.
Could it be that the Americans have been so stupid and reckless in conducting this invasion and occupation or is that a continuous deliberate plan to tear the Iraqi fabric into sects and ethnicities, so that Iraq remains some mirage, a loose country with no identity and no weight in Middle Eastern and World politics ?"

(V): Thanks for the post. Some of our politicians have admitted as much, saying that Iraq ought to be divided into smaller regions based on ethnicity. Of course the point being, "look how they can't get along," not revealing or admitting that this situation is precisely what we've engineered.

I remember Joe Biden, for example, our new VP, talking about this (that Iraq ought to be broken up) on the Bill Maher show on HBO, back before he was even picked to be Obama's running mate.

(V): It is as you say, and the last few days here I've broadened the scope of my argument against America by following the implications of 9/11 being a U.S. conspiracy, of the Iraq war being illegal, of torture unto death, of links revealing CIA involvement in crimes worldwide, just a whole plethora of things. I can understand how this would seem surreal to someone who hasn't spent some time adjusting themselves emotionally & intellectually to a vastly different worldview. It's like an alternate reality that is simply too much to take in at once. I sympathize with this.

Bernice's case is different only in that, with the exception of one post that I can recall, she has consistently opposed everything I've said on this board from the beginning, about any issue whatsoever. So it doesn't follow that NOW she must reject my arguments, whereas BEFORE she thought I was making some good ones. Now....perhaps she really did think that, but I've seen no evidence of it (except her last statement about my previous "credibility" which, considering what has gone before, I find less than credible itself).

(V): To follow up on an earlier theme, here's an interesting article:

Alien Abduction, Demonic Possession, and The Legend of The Vampire
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/demons.htm


It's one of the articles that got me to thinking, hmmm, maybe these guys aren't so nice after all. Even if you find it less than convincing, you might find it stimulating.

ScarletRose: "Make Love Not War"

That's a worthy sentiment. Thanks for posting it. Now if only we could convince the warmongers. lol

--Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.--

--How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?--

--In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.--

The Usurper: Since you seem to like the use of appropriate words.....

answer this for me.... do you believe it is okay to use military force for the purpose of liberating people from an unworthy, and otherwise evil regime? Could you give me your answer from , legal, and moral, and historic perspectives, and include references to back up your claims, in 500 words or less please?

The Usurper: If they were that bad, then they must be planning some use for us. But from what I heard on that interview with the Canadian defence minister... I don't think they are 'bad'.

As to vampires.... I know the real story on that as in energy drainers, demonic possession... tricky, some may be just an unintegrated part of the person psyche (as told in Jewish lit), and in other cases it's not so simple. Possession is one of those subjects that can be tricky.

Dow Jones Stock average is down 32% since Obama got elected.... does it mean anything about his ideas and policies and that of the democrats who control the country?

Czuch: Nope, the downfall was already in process before he got elected and by the way things happened (fraud, etc) .. The financial market has not and will not recover for some time. It's pure economics, no-one has much confidence in the market at the mo... I wouldn't buy shares now, in case another big mess in the market comes to light (eg the $50 billion hedge fund fraud)

People over here have seen some shares tumble from £100 per share to £3 per share.

Czuch: Yes. It means that wall street isn't confident in his plan. That's a huge drop. He should have taken Regan's approach to the stock market fall of 87. Regan left it alone to do its own thing. It not only bounced back, but it flourished. Obama's plan should have at least softened the downward trend but it seems to have made it worse.

OTOH, it takes months for the stock market to correct itself. One analysis says there is tons of money just waiting for the stock market to show signs of a recovery and then it will soar to new heights. We'll see.

(V): It's pure economics, no-one has much confidence in the market at the mo.

Dont you think that a presidents economic policies have anything to do with the consumer confidence level?

I can agree that in general the markets act independent of any president, that the markets had gone too high and for too many wrong reasons, and it was due for a correction, and that correction had started before Bam got elected...

but, if a president starts implementing policies that are contrary to a healthy market, cant that have an effect as well? (speaking hypothetically of course)

Czuch: "do you believe it is okay to use military force for the purpose of liberating people from an unworthy, and otherwise evil regime?"

The simple rule is to stay out of people's business. Unworthy? The U.S. regime is also unworthy. Evil? The U.S. regime is also evil in many ways. Does that justify Russia, or China, or somebody else coming to "liberate us" from our oppressive government?

But even if, for the sake of argument, it were right to liberate a people not asking to be liberated....let us assume the evil ruler is killing all his subjects and not using chemical weapons we supplied him with to do it, as in our old friend Saddam's case (remember we put him in power & he was our ally up until Gulf War I)....let's assume it is a genuine rescue of a people desperately oppressed....well then, maybe a case could be made for that, like rescuing a child from abusive parents.

And that, naturally, is what the U.S. claims its mission was in Iraq. If that's true, why stop at Iraq? Why not rescue the Chinese and the Russians and every oppressed people the world over? Since we are so wise & wonderful, why not just police the whole world for everybody's good...even if they don't recognize that good for themselves? Even you ought to be able to recognize how anti-democratic, anti-libertarian, anti-freedom such a concept really is. Every people has the fundamental right of self-determination. It is on this right we ourselves stood, when we declared our independence in 1776.

And it isn't the case at all that we are spreading liberty, even in Iraq. It's the cover story. But we've brought slaughter and chaos to Iraq, not liberation. We have killed, not healed. We've brought more oppression, in the guise of a puppet-democracy. The only Iraqis we've freed are the dead ones...we freed them from the sorrows of life. It doesn't take a genius to see this, only a fairly impartial observer.

I've reached my 500 word limit.

The Usurper: t were right to liberate a people not asking to be liberated..

Ive not been clear, I am asking about liberating people who are asking to be liberated, which clearly the majority of the Iraqi people were....

If you are not asking to be liberated, then why bother?

The Usurper: If and when the majority of the American people believe as you do that the US government is using a theoretical WMD against its own people, in secret and harmful ways, and we become unable to do anything about it ourselves, then by all means, the Russians or Chinese or whomever would be more than welcome in coming here and trying to liberate us!!!

Let me know when we get there please

The Usurper: But we've brought slaughter and chaos to Iraq,

You have been there?

The Usurper: I am sure that if you were arguing my side, you would be able to find some nice bible quotes explaining how order comes from chaos, or something like that...

The Usurper: Really??? A people who are starving to death and relying on the outside world to feed and clothe them and to monitor their government for them, these are people we have no right to liberate????



You take away our giving them my money and you take away our paying to monitor saddam, and you take away all our aid and our responsibility to them and for them, then I can agree with you, we have nothing to do with them at all, let them all rot in hell as far as i care....


But as a good socialist you should understand this better? You support that if we give banks money we have a right to monitor them more closely and regulate them, basically govern them? You supposrt that if we give you food stamps, we can impose limits on what you can buy with them, right? Thats the way of the world, if I support you, I can make the rules for you too. You must have heard from your parents at one time "as long as you live under my roof"....You dont like them telling you what to do, then move out, dont be beholden to them anymore.

As far as I am concerned, when you take my money to support yourself, then I have a right to impose limits and regulations and rules on you...

That includes doing what I deem necessary to make you more stable and prosperous and self reliant in the future as I possibly am able to!

Czuch: "I am asking about liberating people who are asking to be liberated, which clearly the majority of the Iraqi people were...."

No they weren't. Just how many excuses for invasion will you believe from proven liars? Iraq connected with al-queda! Oops, no. Iraq has WMDs! Oops, no. Oh, I know! Poor Iraqis want to be free of Saddam Hussein! That's it. So let's ride to the rescue. No self-interest on our part, you see, we just want to be helpful. It's what we do in the world, our official policy. To be helpful to others all through the world. We call it Unrealpolitik.

"I am sure that if you were arguing my side, you would be able to find some nice bible quotes explaining how order comes from chaos, or something like that..."

If I were assigned your side in a debate, who knows what I might come up with? But in that case I'd be on the wrong side of the debate & the wrong side of history, so I'd better get ready to do some serious spinning.

"You have been there?"

Have you?

"If and when the majority of the American people believe as you do that the US government is using a theoretical WMD against its own people, in secret and harmful ways, and we become unable to do anything about it ourselves, then by all means, the Russians or Chinese or whomever would be more than welcome in coming here and trying to liberate us!!"

Be careful what you wish for. A people can only free themselves. If we are to be liberated, we must liberate ourselves from our darker half. No one can do this for us.

There is no such thing as democracy at the point of a gun. That is democracy's anti-thesis. Only in this age of mass propaganda can a people be fooled into believing such twisted nonsense.

Czuch: "Really??? A people who are starving to death and relying on the outside world to feed and clothe them and to monitor their government for them, these are people we have no right to liberate????"

You just don't know history. The Iraqi children were starving in the 90s because of the sanctions WE imposed. This we have even admitted. Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton, said that 500,000 Iraqi children dying as a result of our sanctions was "worth it," in order to "contain" Saddam Hussein.

The Usurper: No self-interest on our part,

Of course there is self interest on our part! Nobody is arguing differently?

As I just explained, our interest included not having to spend the next thousand years taking care of them, giving them a chance to prosper for themselves, free from the burden they put on the rest of the world, which would have NEVER happened unless we helped it to happen by force!

You ask why then not everyone??? That is partly why, because not everyone is a burden on us... we do not feed the Russian kids, or chinas kids... they may have burdens but not to the extent where it effects us so much yet.

Plus we have only so much we can do to help, one place one cause at a time, someday we can get to them all, but it takes time, I raq was the right place and the right time, it had to be done, and the mixture of excuses and reasons and time and place all lined up, and it happened..... you dont like it, I do....

The Usurper: The point is that Iraq or the UN can sanction us all they want to and we will be just fine... saddam sucked at taking care of his people, otherwise, our sanctions could not hurt them! You have to blame saddam and his tyrannical ways for any problems Iraqi people had.... but thats right, you are part of the blame america first and for everything crowd!!!! You dont think Iraq has any blame for their own poor situation???

Czuch: "As far as I am concerned, when you take my money to support yourself, then I have a right to impose limits and regulations and rules on you..."

Are you still talking about Iraq? Talk about spinning an argument! Make up your mind, are you for liberating the Iraqis, or for "imposing limits and regulations and rules on them"?

I know what the U.S. is there for. To control the Middle East, most especially the oil supply, and to impose our will on the inhabitants, in order to do so.
This is not secret knowledge. No rocket scientist is needed to understand it.

Czuch: If we just hadnt sanctioned them for being (BEEP) they would be a thriving and prosperous nation, without the need of our money and support????

The Usurper: re you for liberating the Iraqis, or for "imposing limits and regulations and rules on them"?


Forcing out their backwards government... that, in effect, are the imposed limits and regulations.....

Czuch: "you dont like it, I do...."

That's the bottom line for you, you like it so however you can justify it, you will. I'm different from you. I consider whether a thing is right, not what I personally prefer. And I think the Iraqi people have to like it, not you or me. Now, the Iraqi people hate us. And for good reason. We just went in and destroyed their civilization.

Spin it how you want. Hitler did. Bush did. Caesar did. I call it as I see it. I call it tyranny.

You say I blame American first. No I don't. I don't blame America for WWII. I don't blame America for 1776. I don't blame America for WWI. But I do blame America for Vietnam, and for Iraq, and for many other crimes against humanity. If my son committed murder, I'd blame him too.

The Usurper: yes it is in our interest to have a stable and prosperous middle east... but it is in the best interest of the whole world as well, and in the best interest of the Iraqi people too, a win win win situation, thats a good thing, not bad!

The Usurper: not what I personally prefer.

Its not just that I personally prefer it, i think it is absolutely the right thing!

Czuch: "If we just hadnt sanctioned them for being (BEEP) they would be a thriving and prosperous nation, without the need of our money and support????"

Yes, without sanctions they'd have rebuilt and been just fine. It is US meddling with THEM that caused their problems. Saddam wouldn't even have come to power except WE initiated the coup. Learn some history.

Czuch: "Its not just that I personally prefer it, i think it is absolutely the right thing!"

I'm glad you are following your conscience, even if I believe your information is bad. If you are following your conscience, then perhaps in time you'll get better informed and see things more clearly, and your opinions will change. There is hope for a man who does & believes what he thinks is right.

The Usurper: But I do blame America for Vietnam


I have personally been to Vietnam.... the overwhelming majority of the people there, both in the north and in the south told me that they are glad for our efforts there and their ONLY regret is that we bailed on them like we did!!!!

The same will be true in Iraq, I know it I have first hand knowledge of it, problem is, It will take 20 years for me and Bush to be proven right!

The Usurper: Problem is, I USED to think like you, and I have seen things more clearly and my opinions have already changed!!

Czuch: "I have personally been to Vietnam...."

There are plenty of voices from Vietnam who speak a different tale about the Vietnamese than you do.

This sucks, I have to be to work in 20 m inutes and need a shower and a 15 minute drive.... whoops!

Czuch: "Problem is, I USED to think like you, and I have seen things more clearly and my opinions have already changed!!"

Too bad you changed. Often in a dictatorship, people go the way of the dictators.

The Usurper: There are plenty of voices from Vietnam who speak a different tale about the Vietnamese than you do.


Really? You have someone who has personally been there conducting personal interviews with the common people today????

The Usurper: Often in a dictatorship, people go the way of the dictators.

Czuch: "This sucks, I have to be to work in 20 m inutes and need a shower and a 15 minute drive.... whoops!"

Ok, be careful. We've time for this debate later (I hope).

"Really? You have someone who has personally been there conducting personal interviews with the common people today????"

I thought you meant you fought in Vietnam. I keep forgetting your age, you remind me so much of Archie Bunker. lol

I'll look into that and get back with you. Have a good day at work.

Czuch: So you believe the Vietnam war was a just cause, and that we should have stuck it out to victory? And you interviewed some people in Vietnam who hold this view?

It is estimated that 2-4 million died in Vietnam during the war. It is known that we dropped more bombs in Vietnam that we did in WWII. Are you suggesting we just didn't kill enough of them to break the will of the Vietcong & North Vietnamese? Or what?

Also a question for you, just a general one. If you support our intervening in other countries for the betterworld of the world, why do you call yourself a conservative? That's a progressive policy.

So let's say you are a progressive on foreign policy, not a conservative. Are you a conservative at home? Well, you support welfare to the rich, so I guess not. Hmmmm...these terms keep getting twisted out of their proper & historical meanings.

But back to foreign policy. A true progressive believes we can better the world by intervention. So the motives are good. But I ask you, if a dictatorial power, or an imperial power (same thing) wants to spread its influence & force abroad, what will it claim? Why, it will claim to be a progressive power, trying to better the world & help people, etc.

So the question then is this...how do you distinguish between a truly progressive motive and a motive that is imperial but pretends it is progressive? Do you think that, by definition, if the U.S. is doing it, it is always progressive, and if someone else is doing it (like Russia or China) it is always oppressive? Or do you look to the evidence at hand, on a case-by-case basis, or perhaps at historical patterns?

Czuch: Not at the moment. Too soon. It is gonna take time to correct what has gone wrong, and if anyone thinks an instant upturn is going to happen because of a new Pres (it wouldn't have mattered if McCain got elected the same situation would still be happening) they are then thinking that the Pres is God and can perform miracles and wipe out all the debt, fraud, etc just with a wave of a wand... better find the Pres a large deposit of gold.

(V): "better find the Pres a large deposit of gold."

Apparently a large deposit of gold is one of the things missing from beneath the WTC. Another unsolved mystery.....