Comments on: Has Obama already written the history books?

By: Soccer Dad

Soccer Dad — Thu, 21 May 2009 10:00:30 +0000

Submitted 05/21/09…

This week’s Watcher’s Council nominations are up. Land For Peace, American Style – Joshuapundit writes a fractured future history if the same demands made on Israel were implemented here. It’s a variation on a them that Yaakov Kirschen has drawn (an…

By: Watcher of Weasels » A Prescription For Disaster

Watcher of Weasels » A Prescription For Disaster — Thu, 21 May 2009 03:32:49 +0000

[...] Bookworm Room – Has Obama already written the history books? [...]

By: David Foster

David Foster — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:03:47 +0000

Thanks, Gringo.

There was an amazing amount of this stuff in the 30s and even early 40s, despite the clear signals that Hitler had sent about his intentions.

When Germany invaded Poland, U.S. Senator William Borah said:

“Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.”

Also, read about the experiences of an American naval officer during the Disarmament Conference of 1921.

By: Gringo

Gringo — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:39:12 +0000

Here is the Weekly Standard article that David Foster alluded to. Here it is in more readable format.

By: David Foster

David Foster — Wed, 20 May 2009 03:14:40 +0000

Helen–”The majority of Americans now think we need to look hard at ourselves before we judge the rest of the world”….numerous people in the late 1930s and early 1940s thought the way you do. Here are some comments by Amerian religious leaders during that time frame, taken from a Weekly Standard article:
**
German militarism, said one Methodist minister, “may be provoked by bitter belief..that there is no peaceful way of solving a desperate economic problem.” Condemnation of Hitler, according to a leader in the United Church of Christ, was a “short-circuited, adolescent hatred of individual leaders.” And a Unitarian minister in New York said that “If America goes into the war, it will not be for idealistic reasons but to serve her own imperialistic interests.” The it’s-all-our-fault line was echoes by a Reverend Holmes, who said that a German victory should be viewed as “the punishment for our transgressions.”
**

The irresponsible attitudinizing of these religious leaders, and others like them, contributed to the killing of about a hundred million people. After it was all over, I expect most of them still felt holy and righteous.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:05:23 +0000

Peace is whatever people want it to be, Book. It is only the war mongers that have strict requirements, like military victory, for peace.

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:27:21 +0000

On the subject of "we tried peace," I suggest watching this Frontline video ("Children of the Taliban") about peaceful villagers in the SWAT valley, men, women and children without arms or resources, who found themselves taken over by the Taliban. On the home front, Frontline was incredibly hostile to Bush, and it's no friend of Israel, but I have to give it full credit for this video, nailing the horrors of life under the Taliban. Helen, people like the Taliban don't do peace, at least not as we understand it. Their version of peace is more in the Roman style: "We make a desert and call it peace." You don't want to be on the receiving end of that definition. SSG Dave: You are absolutely right about nations having interests, not friends. Thank you for your clarity.

By: Gringo

Gringo — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:15:54 +0000

Helen: What has changed, Bookworm, is that now the majority of American people believe, “Yes, We can,” and the world now sees America as a country with a leader who is willing to try peace. I tried peace back in the Vietnam War days and got Conscientious Objector status. My days as a pacifist were shattered by the GENOCIDE IN CAMBODIA while we stood on the sidelines with “clean hands.” We tried peace. It didn’t work. Period. Let me repeat this. We tried peace. It didn’t work. Period. If you are so willing to try peace, then go live with the Taliban. Go live with Al Queda. Put your money where your mouth is. I repeat: put your money where your mouth is. On the other hand, we now have peace with Saddam given that he is six feet under, no? One has to be a friend to have a friend. Friends, you say . Such as the Taliban, for example? Such as the Holocaust-denying Amahdinejad? Such as the KKK, for example? Go make friends with Markus Gunther. Here is access to an interesting video about friends of Christians. I am reminded of that old saying, tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are. Go make friends with those people. Be my guest.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:58:47 +0000

David is right in that nations do not have friends, if only because friends are individuals and not conglomerates. You can trust a friend or a fiend if only because human nature is static and human personalities are very hard to change all of a sudden. You can trust that the personality, honor, or basic human flaws of a person will remain as they are or as they have been forged, which makes them either your friend or a fiend of an enemy: either are predictable.

However, when you speak of nations and their relationships with other nations, we are not speaking of individuals. After all, America changes leaderships every half decade or so. There is no such continuity, unless the Senator for Life clique of the Democrat party are the ones pulling the strings for America’s foreign policies. Then there will be continuity.

But until then, what we have is a group of people talking to another group of people, and while certain individuals in one group can be friends with certain individuals in the other group, this does not make the two groups “friends”.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:53:06 +0000

We fought a war to get rid of just such a Strong Man, Saddam. But some others amongst this geographic locale were against that. They claimed that it wasn’t because they liked Saddam, that they had material issues with the war. Well, that wasn’t entirely true, after all.

a loud (obnoxious) minority who think they are smarter than we who want peace

There’s that psychological defense mechanism called projection again. Just because you and your allies value intelligence as the be all and end all indicator of human progress, does not mean we do, Helen. When you are looking in the mirror, what you see reflected back is not Bush’s evil.

And, as Maya Angelou once said, “friendship is possible only between equals.”

That’s convenient, for Maya Angelou had no equals and wanted none therein.

If Obama is God (which he isn’t); then we are God, too. This is nonsense.

Exactly what I have been saying. Those that think electing a dictator in chief and that this somehow makes them virtuous because they pretend to the rest of us in claiming that this dictator is great and thus they are great for electing him, are the cannon fodder of which I have spoken and written of before.

What kind of a person believes that if Obama has an attribute, then the rest of us (you) also have that attribute? What kind of a logic has been adopted by Helen here that thinks if Obama is God, then “we” are God too. It is only nonsense if you have accepted the logic that what Obama is, those that voted him in are also. But that’s not true and that is not logical, which means it is illogical and in this circumstance and given the evidence, also manifestly foolish, full of plagiarism and vice and corruption, as well as decadence and self-destructiveness.

We who saw the light and did not vote for nor give any support to the Dictator in Chief, the Thug O Crat shaded in mirages and lies, do not favor self-destruction and American incest over fundamentally sound and healthy policies and philosophies.