[TheRealThing]

If anybody on here ought to know there's more to wrong or right than a show of hands, I would have thought it was you.

General Julius Ewell committed war crimes. Soldiers under his command did as well. Nick Turse, and others, plus Pentagon documents themselves, establish this. If you deny these facts in favor of your own experience, what is there to say to that? It speaks for itself.

To believe that the United States military is not immune to bad actors does not mean one has contempt for all its commanders. To believe the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake does not mean one holds the country in contempt.
I am surprised you feel this way.

I don't know that he committed war crimes and neither do you. Sometimes we hang a sentence on somebody for political reasons and so on. But let's say he is guilty as you say. We're still talking about one guy out of thousands.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I don't know that he committed war crimes and neither do you. Sometimes we hang a sentence on somebody for political reasons and so on. But let's say he is guilty as you say. We're still talking about one guy out of thousands.

Actually, we did NOT hang sentence upon him for political reasons. When a nation asks a man to risk his life in service of country, I understand the deep reluctance to put him/her on trial for acts carried out during that service. It also explains why juries are reluctant to convict police officers.

If your reasoning is that no one but General Ewell knows whether or not he committed war crimes, you are discounting a tremendous amount of eyewitness testimony, Vietnamese and American. Based on this testimony, and other data provided by the Pentagon, were I on a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" would have been established.

[TheRealThing]

Actually, we did NOT hang sentence upon him for political reasons. When a nation asks a man to risk his life in service of country, I understand the deep reluctance to put him/her on trial for acts carried out during that service. It also explains why juries are reluctant to convict police officers.

If your reasoning is that no one but General Ewell knows whether or not he committed war crimes, you are discounting a tremendous amount of eyewitness testimony, Vietnamese and American. Based on this testimony, and other data provided by the Pentagon, were I on a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" would have been established.

Here we go again, down a liberal rat hole. The conversation goes from how the US Military is perceived across the globe to why you personally have a vicarious ax to grind with Lt Gen Julian Ewell. There were allegations made against the General, but they did not come about until after more than 30 years following his record of distinguished service. David Hackworth's book which criticized the General extensively for example, was not written until 2003. Col Hackworth was no stranger to controversy himself though, as long before he made his ill-received allegations against Gen Ewell, he faced serious charges himself. "He was nearly court-martialed for various allegations during his Vietnam service, such as running a brothel, running gambling houses, and exploiting his position for personal profit by manipulating the scrip in which soldiers were paid and the limited U.S. currency available in the war zone. Ultimately, Secretary of the Army Robert Froehlke opted not to press charges, deciding that Hackworth's career accomplishments outweighed his supposed misdeeds, and that prosecuting an outspoken war hero would result in unneeded bad publicity for the Army.[9]" [Wiki]

And believe me, the foregoing is only the tip of the iceberg as far as Col Hackworth was concerned. He spent his life after having gone rogue and getting himself run out of the service, to living in foreign countries from then on. Then there was the 2009 Washington Post article (ever the newspaper on quest to reclaim the glory of Watergate) and the book by Nick Turse. That relatively small body of work constitutes the main criticisms of Gen Ewell, and is a far cry from a tremendous amount of testimony.

But the General was not charged, nor did he face any charge associated with his military career. There are those who would have charged him based on little more than gossip, but sanity thankfully reigns in the minds of US Commanders and so the matter was a nonstarter. But you said Gen Ewell was spared formal charges for political reasons, a charge of your own which you cannot substantiate. My reasoning, having lived a life of actual accomplishment in the US Military and in civilian pursuits, is to not stick my foot in my mouth and let the facts speak for themselves. The only thing damning by way of fact was the IG report in which it was reported that there could have been as many as 7,000 thousand civilian deaths associated with his command. The matter is closed and all the speculation in the world will not change that.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Here we go again, down a liberal rat hole. The conversation goes from how the US Military is perceived across the globe to why you personally have a vicarious ax to grind with Lt Gen Julian Ewell. There were allegations made against the General, but they did not come about until after more than 30 years following his record of distinguished service. David Hackworth's book which criticized the General extensively for example, was not written until 2003. Col Hackworth was no stranger to controversy himself though, as long before he made his ill-received allegations against Gen Ewell, he faced serious charges himself. "He was nearly court-martialed for various allegations during his Vietnam service, such as running a brothel, running gambling houses, and exploiting his position for personal profit by manipulating the scrip in which soldiers were paid and the limited U.S. currency available in the war zone. Ultimately, Secretary of the Army Robert Froehlke opted not to press charges, deciding that Hackworth's career accomplishments outweighed his supposed misdeeds, and that prosecuting an outspoken war hero would result in unneeded bad publicity for the Army.[9]" [Wiki]

And believe me, the foregoing is only the tip of the iceberg as far as Col Hackworth was concerned. He spent his life after having gone rogue and getting himself run out of the service, to living in foreign countries from then on. Then there was the 2009 Washington Post article (ever the newspaper on quest to reclaim the glory of Watergate) and the book by Nick Turse. That relatively small body of work constitutes the main criticisms of Gen Ewell, and is a far cry from a tremendous amount of testimony.

But the General was not charged, nor did he face any charge associated with his military career. There are those who would have charged him based on little more than gossip, but sanity thankfully reigns in the minds of US Commanders and so the matter was a nonstarter. But you said Gen Ewell was spared formal charges for political reasons, a charge of your own which you cannot substantiate. My reasoning, having lived a life of actual accomplishment in the US Military and in civilian pursuits, is to not stick my foot in my mouth and let the facts speak for themselves. The only thing damning by way of fact was the IG report in which it was reported that there could have been as many as 7,000 thousand civilian deaths associated with his command. The matter is closed and all the speculation in the world will not change that.

Do you discount hundreds of interviews with Vietnamese villagers from the Mekong Delta?

Perhaps you should look into Ewell's friends in high places, or does that not count as "political" in your "actual accomplishment" eyes?

And, it wasn't just Ewell; he is one example.

[Bob Seger]

If anybody on here ought to know there's more to wrong or right than a show of hands, I would have thought it was you.

General Julius Ewell committed war crimes. Soldiers under his command did as well. Nick Turse, and others, plus Pentagon documents themselves, establish this. If you deny these facts in favor of your own experience, what is there to say to that? It speaks for itself.

To believe that the United States military is not immune to bad actors does not mean one has contempt for all its commanders. To believe the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake does not mean one holds the country in contempt.
I am surprised you feel this way.

You know, sometimes you just need to shut up about all of this stuff that you don't have the first clue about. I wouldn't take your opinion on anything regarding the Vietnam War with the slightest grain of salt...

YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT!!

You were not there, TRT was..

It is sickening for you to even make the first comment about any of it and try to argue with someone who was actually putting their life on the line, while you were in your pajamas watching Mr. Cartoon on TV.

You really just need to shut up about this one, if it is your intentions to argue about it with someone who was actually over there.

Disgusting, but from you, it's very typical!!

[The Urban Sombrero]

You know, sometimes you just need to shut up about all of this stuff that you don't have the first clue about. I wouldn't take your opinion on anything regarding the Vietnam War with the slightest grain of salt...

YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT!!

You were not there, TRT was..

It is sickening for you to even make the first comment about any of it and try to argue with someone who was actually putting their life on the line, while you were in your pajamas watching Mr. Cartoon on TV.

You really just need to shut up about this one, if it is your intentions to argue about it with someone who was actually over there.

Disgusting, but from you, it's very typical!!

I addressed the focus of your ire here earlier. Was TRT with Ewell in the Mekong Delta? Does he, do you deny the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of Vietnamese villagers, a large number of US soldiers?

Your attitude here expresses the "Nathan Jessup" mindset that TRT claims is a "fantasy world" analogy, yet here it is, over and over again.

Your premise, "hey, man, you weren't there. You know nothing about it," is the hiding place of a lot of atrocity, and, often a tactic used to quash debate in uncomfortable territory, or an attempt to silence legitimate inquiry.

[Bob Seger]

Going out on a limb here and supposing that in an earlier life about 250 years ago, that you were often referred to as a Tory.

If ever I wake up in the morning in the need of feeling nauseous, I look no further than a trip to the annals of BGR and read a comment from the Urban Cowboy.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Going out on a limb here and supposing that in an earlier life about 250 years ago, that you were often referred to as a Tory.

If ever I wake up in the morning in the need of feeling nauseous, I look no further than a trip to the annals of BGR and read a comment from the Urban Cowboy.

Would the comparison be the war to gain independence from England? And the comparison to suggesting that Operation Speedy Express in the Mekong Delta involved non-combatant casualties in the thousands? And you feel sick?

[Bob Seger]

It gets real old to watch you contradict and argue with every single thing that gets posted on here....It doesn't matter what it is , you're on the other side of the aisle, and you are the consummate expert..

You are one strange cat.

You actually hate the US, don't you?:popcorn:

[TheRealThing]

I addressed the focus of your ire here earlier. Was TRT with Ewell in the Mekong Delta? Does he, do you deny the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of Vietnamese villagers, a large number of US soldiers?

Your attitude here expresses the "Nathan Jessup" mindset that TRT claims is a "fantasy world" analogy, yet here it is, over and over again.

Your premise, "hey, man, you weren't there. You know nothing about it," is the hiding place of a lot of atrocity, and, often a tactic used to quash debate in uncomfortable territory, or an attempt to silence legitimate inquiry.

The people of Viet Nam were being victimized by Communist Red China, not by the United States or Gen Ewell. It's hard to fight a war with insurgent guerilla forces sent to live in and among the civilian population, but that was our plight, and 'the' plan coming out of the north from the outset. You sidestepped that point earlier so that you could parrot your liberal talking points which as always, make the good guys look like the bad guys.

It's a shame that you would take the side of the Communist propaganda line and excoriate your own countrymen but, that is the way of the liberal. We had some of the most bloodthirsty radical Jihadis incarcerated in Guantanamo, that is until an army of liberal lawyers began suing the Bush Administration to get them released. Theses are the worst of the worst overtaken in the very act of committing war crimes themselves, but no, the ACLU and other enemies of state would not rest. So, between their efforts and the faux indignation of the combined left we began setting this scourge free to work their evil on the world yet again.

The Obama Administration is an extension of this afore mentioned group of rabid liberals who share the view that the US unfairly forces it's will on the rest of the world. They are also quite fond of pointing out how many were released under the Bush Administration in order to justify closing Guantanamo. The administration have therefore, hit overdrive in their efforts to release them all and close down Gitmo. A shuttered Gitmo then, is to become a monument before the eyes of the world, to demonstrate America's new attitude towards intervention, as we moth ball our fleet and pull back our military horns in general. What the armies of the world could have never accomplished in war (taking our freedom), is within sight of actually happening anyway IMHO. This land would never allow a foreign force to take our freedom from us. But it seems that which we would never lose to war, we are none the less poised to just hand over peacefully and knowingly to thugs like Iran. How many more billions are we Americans going to surrender before we vote some of these guys out of office?

They are wrong and you are wrong. We are not the enemy, like salt and light we have preserved and perpetuate peace and safety across the globe. To demonstrate the point one need look no farther than the foment of the Middle East. Where once there was relative 'stability in the region', we now see volcanic unrest and coming war. It is nearly impossible to estimate the hundreds of thousands of people who've died in the Middle East under the watch of the present administration. China has expanded their combined military strength exponentially and is building military islands in the South China Sea, Iran will soon be nuclear, Russia is resurging on a path to regain territory lost at the collapse of the USSR, and NATO is a mere ghost of it's former self as the kingpin which recently gave it the most viability (Turkey) is now in flirtatious Geopolitical reconfiguration with Russia of all people.

[The Urban Sombrero]

The people of Viet Nam were being victimized by Communist Red China, not by the United States or Gen Ewell. It's hard to fight a war with insurgent guerilla forces sent to live in and among the civilian population, but that was our plight, and 'the' plan coming out of the north from the outset. You sidestepped that point earlier so that you could parrot your liberal talking points which as always, make the good guys look like the bad guys.

It's a shame that you would take the side of the Communist propaganda line and excoriate your own countrymen but, that is the way of the liberal. We had some of the most bloodthirsty radical Jihadis incarcerated in Guantanamo, that is until an army of liberal lawyers began suing the Bush Administration to get them released. Theses are the worst of the worst overtaken in the very act of committing war crimes themselves, but no, the ACLU and other enemies of state would not rest. So, between their efforts and the faux indignation of the combined left we began setting this scourge free to work their evil on the world yet again.

The Obama Administration is an extension of this afore mentioned group of rabid liberals who share the view that the US unfairly forces it's will on the rest of the world. They are also quite fond of pointing out how many were released under the Bush Administration in order to justify closing Guantanamo. The administration have therefore, hit overdrive in their efforts to release them all and close down Gitmo. A shuttered Gitmo then, is to become a monument before the eyes of the world, to demonstrate America's new attitude towards intervention, as we moth ball our fleet and pull back our military horns in general. What the armies of the world could have never accomplished in war (taking our freedom), is within sight of actually happening anyway IMHO. This land would never allow a foreign force to take our freedom from us. But it seems that which we would never lose to war, we are none the less poised to just hand over peacefully and knowingly to thugs like Iran. How many more billions are we Americans going to surrender before we vote some of these guys out of office?

They are wrong and you are wrong. We are not the enemy, like salt and light we have preserved and perpetuate peace and safety across the globe. To demonstrate the point one need look no farther than the foment of the Middle East. Where once there was relative 'stability in the region', we now see volcanic unrest and coming war. It is nearly impossible to estimate the hundreds of thousands of people who've died in the Middle East under the watch of the present administration. China has expanded their combined military strength exponentially and is building military islands in the South China Sea, Iran will soon be nuclear, Russia is resurging on a path to regain territory lost at the collapse of the USSR, and NATO is a mere ghost of it's former self as the kingpin which recently gave it the most viability (Turkey) is now in flirtatious Geopolitical reconfiguration with Russia of all people.

"Like salt and light, we have preserved and perpetuate peace and safety across the globe."

But not always, and there's the rub: it seems if one holds up a part for scrutiny, you immediately suggest it is a denunciation of the whole.

I wasn't in Vietnam. I freely admit that. That the enemy hid amongst the populous by day and marauded by night, I understand. To my remembrance, I have nowhere suggested your experience is anything but as you say you found things.

I agree that the United States is often "salt and light," however, we are not immune to the frailty, foible, folly, and desperate wickedness of the human heart. Not as individuals. Not as a people. Not as a Nation. Not as an Armed Services sector.

[TheRealThing]

"Like salt and light, we have preserved and perpetuate peace and safety across the globe."

But not always, and there's the rub: it seems if one holds up a part for scrutiny, you immediately suggest it is a denunciation of the whole.

I wasn't in Vietnam. I freely admit that. That the enemy hid amongst the populous by day and marauded by night, I understand. To my remembrance, I have nowhere suggested your experience is anything but as you say you found things.

I agree that the United States is often "salt and light," however, we are not immune to the frailty, foible, folly, and desperate wickedness of the human heart. Not as individuals. Not as a people. Not as a Nation. Not as an Armed Services sector.

No, I didn't suggest that, you offered up that little tidbit to counter my observation as to how we Americans are perceived in the world. The contention of the left is as President Obama has revealed during his several apology tours, we caused it. The left in general, believe we caused most of the armed conflict of the 20th Century in fact, through our interventionism.

But since you brought it up, that as I pointed out in my analogy on Gitmo, is the underpinning of globalism, (all of which BTW, is just men greasing the rails for the reign of antichrist). Further, all the La-La lunacy about the brotherhood of man, and the 'let's play nicey nicey, 21st Century thinking foreign policy of this administration. On the one hand you profess a knowledge of the Scripture, while on the other you seemingly deny that It was God Himself, Who said man will never know peace though that may be all he talks about, until the Prince of Peace returns to rule the nations with a rod of iron.

Israel was called on often times, by no less than God Himself to go to war with other peoples. King Saul was inevitably stripped of his crown because he failed to do as the Lord had ordered him, which was to destroy every last man, woman and child of a people known as the Amalekites, along with every one of their livestock. To utterly destroy them in war. Saul didn't follow the Lord's instruction though the people were defeated by Saul as he brought home the King, booty, and certain prized livestock. War is a part of this life, and as much as we'd all prefer to avoid it, we are to be ready. That's called deterrent, and man will never grow or evolve his way out of the threat of war. In fact, war looms on the horizon for all mankind as is prophesied in Scripture. You might find that atrocious, I find it horrifying. But God calls it inevitable and is due to the fall of man and his fallen nature of destruction.

Trump is right to call for a strong US Military and we are stupid to listen to the La-La's tell us that man has evolved past the threat of large scale land war. What pray tell would Armageddon be? The blood will come up the horses reins, and the fowls of the air will feast on the dead.

[The Urban Sombrero]

No, I didn't suggest that, you offered up that little tidbit to counter my observation as to how we Americans are perceived in the world. The contention of the left is as President Obama has revealed during his several apology tours, we caused it. The left in general, believe we caused most of the armed conflict of the 20th Century in fact, through our interventionism.

But since you brought it up, that as I pointed out in my analogy on Gitmo, is the underpinning of globalism, (all of which BTW, is just men greasing the rails for the reign of antichrist). Further, all the La-La lunacy about the brotherhood of man, and the 'let's play nicey nicey, 21st Century thinking foreign policy of this administration. On the one hand you profess a knowledge of the Scripture, while on the other you seemingly deny that It was God Himself, Who said man will never know peace though that may be all he talks about, until the Prince of Peace returns to rule the nations with a rod of iron.

Israel was called on often times, by no less than God Himself to go to war with other peoples. King Saul was inevitably stripped of his crown because he failed to do as the Lord had ordered him, which was to destroy every last man, woman and child of a people known as the Amalekites, along with every one of their livestock. To utterly destroy them in war. Saul didn't follow the Lord's instruction though the people were defeated by Saul as he brought home the King, booty, and certain prized livestock. War is a part of this life, and as much as we'd all prefer to avoid it, we are to be ready. That's called deterrent, and man will never grow or evolve his way out of the threat of war. In fact, war looms on the horizon for all mankind as is prophesied in Scripture. You might find that atrocious, I find it horrifying. But God calls it inevitable and is due to the fall of man and his fallen nature of destruction.

Trump is right to call for a strong US Military and we are stupid to listen to the La-La's tell us that man has evolved past the threat of large scale land war. What pray tell would Armageddon be? The blood will come up the horses reins, and the fowls of the air will feast on the dead.

It would be highly unusual for a nation such as ours to exist as a global power, the global power, with interventions abundant, covert actions aplenty, for at least 70 years and have created no occasion for a few "Oops, we probably goofed it there and overstepped it here." If the ability to make a sincere apology is a sign of maturity at the personal level, perhaps also at the national.

A prophesied Armageddon does not excuse us from "Blessed are the peacemakers," does it? Yet, I agree that it is foolish hubris that would lead men to believe our race will "study war no more" this side of eternity. I think President T. Roosevelt had it right: "Walk softly but carry a big stick." Also President Reagan, "Peace through strength."

[TheRealThing]

It would be highly unusual for a nation such as ours to exist as a global power, the global power, with interventions abundant, covert actions aplenty, for at least 70 years and have created no occasion for a few "Oops, we probably goofed it there and overstepped it here." If the ability to make a sincere apology is a sign of maturity at the personal level, perhaps also at the national.

A prophesied Armageddon does not excuse us from "Blessed are the peacemakers," does it? Yet, I agree that it is foolish hubris that would lead men to believe our race will "study war no more" this side of eternity. I think President T. Roosevelt had it right: "Walk softly but carry a big stick." Also President Reagan, "Peace through strength."

Well, you started off in La-La Land here ^^, then it was up-periscope into reality for the second paragraph, to which I will respond. But don't worry, I'll drop you back off when I end my post. :biggrin: As I said in my previous post, as a nation we are to be ready to defend ourselves against all comers. Not that we are looking for a fight, but in this world one is coming if we're not ready, and that contrary to Mr Obama's perception of 21st Century thinking. That is the way of things now, and it was and is the way of things for God's chosen people, the Jew.

What I pointed out was the left, who by virtue of the trappings of enlightenment which are reverently given their place of honor behind the ivy covered walls of academia, are themselves wrong in their criticisms of our society. As the Scripture clearly reveals, men; "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man," Romans 1:22-23 (KJV)

In other words it's not about knowledge particularly, it is about wisdom. And in our time as in times past, men value their own ideas of what is right, above the wisdom of the Lord. That is why we make laws which by edict both overrule the Word of God and validate the homosexual lifestyle as an alternative to the natural state, which is one man one woman. And, that is why we stand poised to turn our backs on God's gifts. Among these gifts for example, are fossil fuels in the form of natural gas, crude oil, and coal. Without which, our economy will continue it's death spiral owing to lost jobs and energy costs that no one will be able to afford. The gift of freedom too is in jeopardy, NAFTA has sent manufacturing jobs offshore, without which and the cheap energy needed to run them, we find ourselves in a national defense pickle. If war comes again, and it will, tooling up to make war machines will take on a challenge much more epic in scope than the challenge we faced at the outset of WW2. Liberals were taking the same stand back then, using the same flawed logic in justification BTW. But there simply will not be enough time to do it.

Frankly, the La-La's marijuana inspired dream of idyllic pasture scenes strewn with picnic blankets, children chasing bubbles with "all the people, living for today" is the stupidest thing I could ever "imagine."

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well, you started off in La-La Land here ^^, then it was up-periscope into reality for the second paragraph, to which I will respond. But don't worry, I'll drop you back off when I end my post. :biggrin: As I said in my previous post, as a nation we are to be ready to defend ourselves against all comers. Not that we are looking for a fight, but in this world one is coming if we're not ready, and that contrary to Mr Obama's perception of 21st Century thinking. That is the way of things now, and it was and is the way of things for God's chosen people, the Jew.

What I pointed out was the left, who by virtue of the trappings of enlightenment which are reverently given their place of honor behind the ivy covered walls of academia, are themselves wrong in their criticisms of our society. As the Scripture clearly reveals, men; "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man," Romans 1:22-23 (KJV)

In other words it's not about knowledge particularly, it is about wisdom. And in our time as in times past, men value their own ideas of what is right, above the wisdom of the Lord. That is why we make laws which by edict both overrule the Word of God and validate the homosexual lifestyle as an alternative to the natural state, which is one man one woman. And, that is why we stand poised to turn our backs on God's gifts. Among these gifts for example, are fossil fuels in the form of natural gas, crude oil, and coal. Without which, our economy will continue it's death spiral owing to lost jobs and energy costs that no one will be able to afford. The gift of freedom too is in jeopardy, NAFTA has sent manufacturing jobs offshore, without which and the cheap energy needed to run them, we find ourselves in a national defense pickle. If war comes again, and it will, tooling up to make war machines will take on a challenge much more epic in scope than the challenge we faced at the outset of WW2. Liberals were taking the same stand back then, using the same flawed logic in justification BTW. But there simply will not be enough time to do it.

Frankly, the La-La's marijuana inspired dream of idyllic pasture scenes strewn with picnic blankets, children chasing bubbles with "all the people, living for today" is the stupidest thing I could ever "imagine."

Isn't your "fossil fuels are the gift of God" an assumption about progress and technology and industrialization that begs on the same door as those you so vehemently assert are in "La La land"?

[TheRealThing]

Isn't your "fossil fuels are the gift of God" an assumption about progress and technology and industrialization that begs on the same door as those you so vehemently assert are in "La La land"?

Men live on planet earth the last I checked. Replete within and upon said earth are the raw materials sufficient to sustain life and pioneer the science of the future. Now call me stupid but if history is any indication, the horse was still crapping on the streets long after the auto was invented. Coal fired electrical generating stations endure to this day even though atomic generating stations function without incident. Likewise, not all US Naval vessels use nuclear fuel, though many do. The point is it takes time to integrate technological advances into industry. And that is only possible once the technology has been fully developed.

It is profoundly asinine in my view for America to roll over on the bounty of fuel which lays at our own feet, especially in light of the fact that there exists nada with which to replace it. Maybe if one you chips off the old Lennon block could come up with renewable energy sources that were actually viable, then the government could force industry's hand to implement them a bit ahead of schedule. But alas, they do not as of yet exist. Meanwhile, we pour our life's blood into OPEC, funding our enemies dream to see America laying on the ash heap of history. And why? Because as I just said, liberals professing themselves to be wise, are become fools. Changing the gifts of God such as fossil fuels, into agents of our destruction. If there is anything dumber, I guess I just have not run across it yet. And before you dismiss my analogy out of hand consider Iran. Sworn enemies of the US complete with an annual Death to America Day, we're having trouble finding the required number of cargo planes with which to deliver all the cash we'd love to bestow on them. I will however be the first to admit, if wind power ever actually finds it's stride, liberals should be able to blow it to the forefront.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Men live on planet earth the last I checked. Replete within and upon said earth are the raw materials sufficient to sustain life and pioneer the science of the future. Now call me stupid but if history is any indication, the horse was still crapping on the streets long after the auto was invented. Coal fired electrical generating stations endure to this day even though atomic generating stations function without incident. Likewise, not all US Naval vessels use nuclear fuel, though many do. The point is it takes time to integrate technological advances into industry. And that is only possible once the technology has been fully developed.

It is profoundly asinine in my view for America to roll over on the bounty of fuel which lays at our own feet, especially in light of the fact that there exists nada with which to replace it. Maybe if one you chips off the old Lennon block could come up with renewable energy sources that were actually viable, then the government could force industry's hand to implement them a bit ahead of schedule. But alas, they do not as of yet exist. Meanwhile, we pour our life's blood into OPEC, funding our enemies dream to see America laying on the ash heap of history. And why? Because as I just said, liberals professing themselves to be wise, are become fools. Changing the gifts of God such as fossil fuels, into agents of our destruction. If there is anything dumber, I guess I just have not run across it yet. And before you dismiss my analogy out of hand consider Iran. Sworn enemies of the US complete with an annual Death to America Day, we're having trouble finding the required number of cargo planes with which to deliver all the cash we'd love to bestow on them. I will however be the first to admit, if wind power ever actually finds it's stride, liberals should be able to blow it to the forefront.

Can you show me in Scripture where it is ok to withhold money owed because it is an enemy it is owed to? Apparently, the teachings of Christ are not applicable, not workable, La La lunacy if applied at the military- industrial level in your view. Jesus Caesar? AmeriChrist?

[TheRealThing]

Can you show me in Scripture where it is ok to withhold money owed because it is an enemy it is owed to? Apparently, the teachings of Christ are not applicable, not workable, La La lunacy if applied at the military- industrial level in your view. Jesus Caesar? AmeriChrist?

Ridiculous. One does not owe his enemy for acts of war such as the ones perpetrated by Iran against the US. They've seized and held hostages since the days of the Carter Administration and sponsored terror in which Americans lost their lives. You need to spend 444 days in an Iranian prison and then perhaps you'd gain the proper perspective.

I would be good if Trump gets elected and people like you have to retreat into denial for 8 years.

[Bob Seger]

Can you show me in Scripture where it is ok to withhold money owed because it is an enemy it is owed to? Apparently, the teachings of Christ are not applicable, not workable, La La lunacy if applied at the military- industrial level in your view. Jesus Caesar? AmeriChrist?

I'll just bet you've got "Death to America" pennants hung all over your bedroom walls.

[Bob Seger]

Ridiculous. One does not owe his enemy for acts of war such as the ones perpetrated by Iran against the US. They've seized and held hostages since the days of the Carter Administration and sponsored terror in which Americans lost their lives. You need to spend 444 days in an Iranian prison and then perhaps you'd gain the proper perspective.

I would be good if Trump gets elected and people like you have to retreat into denial for 8 years.

In the case of this weirdo, prison for about 8 years would be more fitting.

[TheRealThing]

I'll just bet you've got "Death to America" pennants hung all over your bedroom walls.

Let me expand on this self imposed liberal euphoria. The United States within the last week commissioned a new Zumwalt class destroyer. A class of naval vessel of which this nation is in sore need. We originally planned to produce 32 of them, and the US taxpayer has already spent the money to develop the systems technology needed to build them. That number was reduced to 24, then dropped to 7, and now rests at the 3 that we now have in service. And BTW, has anybody heard about this? I looked online and saw nada. I only learned about it in listening to Stewart Varney. We commission a new top line war ship, and it's crickets from the liberal media like we should be ashamed or something.

The cost of these destroyers was to be about 4 and a half billion per vessel, but has leaped to 9 and a half due to the fact that the development costs originally aimed at being spread across 32 vessels, has instead been spread across only 3. So now we see how the rabid libs make their arguments about military hardware cost overruns. It is entirely okay though, if we send Iran a billion and a half dollars in the middle of the night. Foreign cash no less, loaded on pallets aboard what was likely Iranian military aircraft. But wait, Iran ordered in the next 10 minutes so we multiplied the actual amount of money they're getting to over 33 billion!!!! That updated amount is according to Lou Dobbs.

Now lets recap. We can't afford to defend ourselves, supposedly. But we can send the midnight rider over to Iran with 33 billion in foreign currencies. That amount my friends, would have purchased 8 Zumwalt Class Destroyers. Had lucidity and patriotism prevailed, that money would have stayed stateside, in the hands of US defense contractors, suppliers, workmen and the US Armed Services. Not in the hands of the world's leading sponsor of terror.

[The Urban Sombrero]

In the case of this weirdo, prison for about 8 years would be more fitting.

Get hold of yourself, Bob.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Let me expand on this self imposed liberal euphoria. The United States within the last week commissioned a new Zumwalt class destroyer. A class of naval vessel of which this nation is in sore need. We originally planned to produce 32 of them, and the US taxpayer has already spent the money to develop the systems technology needed to build them. That number was reduced to 24, then dropped to 7, and now rests at the 3 that we now have in service. And BTW, has anybody heard about this? I looked online and saw nada. I only learned about it in listening to Stewart Varney. We commission a new top line war ship, and it's crickets from the liberal media like we should be ashamed or something.

The cost of these destroyers was to be about 4 and a half billion per vessel, but has leaped to 9 and a half due to the fact that the development costs originally aimed at being spread across 32 vessels, has instead been spread across only 3. So now we see how the rabid libs make their arguments about military hardware cost overruns. It is entirely okay though, if we send Iran a billion and a half dollars in the middle of the night. Foreign cash no less, loaded on pallets aboard what was likely Iranian military aircraft. But wait, Iran ordered in the next 10 minutes so we multiplied the actual amount of money they're getting to over 33 billion!!!! That updated amount is according to Lou Dobbs.

Now lets recap. We can't afford to defend ourselves, supposedly. But we can send the midnight rider over to Iran with 33 billion in foreign currencies. That amount my friends, would have purchased 8 Zumwalt Class Destroyers. Had lucidity and patriotism prevailed, that money would have stayed stateside, in the hands of US defense contractors, suppliers, workmen and the US Armed Services. Not in the hands of the world's leading sponsor of terror.

Were they owed the money? I am just trying to get a hold on under whose authority you finagle around the words of that Bible you thump when it suits you. I am assuming the Sermon on the Mount is just pious whisperings when it comes nationalism?

So, they take hostages, and we keep money that is theirs. Right?

[Hoot Gibson]

Were they owed the money? I am just trying to get a hold on under whose authority you finagle around the words of that Bible you thump when it suits you. I am assuming the Sermon on the Mount is just pious whisperings when it comes nationalism?

So, they take hostages, and we keep money that is theirs. Right?

The money belonged to the Iranian government that made the deal with our government. We did not owe any money to the terrorists who overthrew the Iranian government and took American hostages. The American embassy in Tehran was U.S. soil and seizing control of it was an act of war. The Iranian assets in this country should have been declared reparations and split between the former hostages and our national debt.

That is one seriously warped view of the world to believe that Iranian terrorists had a legitimate claim on the assets of the regime that they overthrew. If criminals seize control of a bank, should those with mortgages with the bank's rightful owners make checks out to the crooks in possession of the bank?

[The Urban Sombrero]

The money belonged to the Iranian government that made the deal with our government. We did not owe any money to the terrorists who overthrew the Iranian government and took American hostages. The American embassy in Tehran was U.S. soil and seizing control of it was an act of war. The Iranian assets in this country should have been declared reparations and split between the former hostages and our national debt.

That is one seriously warped view of the world to believe that Iranian terrorists had a legitimate claim on the assets of the regime that they overthrew. If criminals seize control of a bank, should those with mortgages with the bank's rightful owners make checks out to the crooks in possession of the bank?

In my view, this point you make is legitimate. It has gone mostly unreported that the "Ayatollah Revolution" was not the government the deal was made with. However, if the long term goal is to continue to reach out to moderates in Iran, I can see merit in paying money the general population sees as owed to them. I was hoping it wasn't your position we simply didn't have to pay them in the way a bully takes money on the playground, then scoffs at any who dare say, "Give us our money."

[Hoot Gibson]

In my view, this point you make is legitimate. It has gone mostly unreported that the "Ayatollah Revolution" was not the government the deal was made with. However, if the long term goal is to continue to reach out to moderates in Iran, I can see merit in paying money the general population sees as owed to them. I was hoping it wasn't your position we simply didn't have to pay them in the way a bully takes money on the playground, then scoffs at any who dare say, "Give us our money."

What Obama did was pay nearly $2 billion cash to the Iranian terrorists who seized our embassy and held American hostages for more than a year - and that was not the last Americans that the Iranian terrorists have seized. Obama paid a huge ransom to Iranian terrorists in cash. Do you really believe that Iranian "moderates" will benefit in anyway from the payment of a ransom to the thugs who control the government?

What Obama did is an impeachable offense that will go unpunished.

[TheRealThing]

The money belonged to the Iranian government that made the deal with our government. We did not owe any money to the terrorists who overthrew the Iranian government and took American hostages. The American embassy in Tehran was U.S. soil and seizing control of it was an act of war. The Iranian assets in this country should have been declared reparations and split between the former hostages and our national debt.

That is one seriously warped view of the world to believe that Iranian terrorists had a legitimate claim on the assets of the regime that they overthrew. If criminals seize control of a bank, should those with mortgages with the bank's rightful owners make checks out to the crooks in possession of the bank?

I just tried to explain that to him in the foregoing posts Hoot. He takes his cues from the revisionist left, and pinning him down though easily accomplished in fact, is a decidedly daunting task if those facts counter his indoctrination.

[Bob Seger]

Were they owed the money? I am just trying to get a hold on under whose authority you finagle around the words of that Bible you thump when it suits you. I am assuming the Sermon on the Mount is just pious whisperings when it comes nationalism?

So, they take hostages, and we keep money that is theirs. Right?

Uh, maybe if you got your head out of your hind end long enough to think, you could figure out that (though it may not be officially declared by congress), we are at war with the terrorist regime of Iran.


Maybe it's just too simple for you egg headed liberals to understand that you don't fund your enemy when you are actively engaged in war.

[TheRealThing]

Were they owed the money? I am just trying to get a hold on under whose authority you finagle around the words of that Bible you thump when it suits you. I am assuming the Sermon on the Mount is just pious whisperings when it comes nationalism?

So, they take hostages, and we keep money that is theirs. Right?

I realize that Biblical truths and wisdom seem vague to you. That's why you're constantly misinterpreting Scripture and building cases which suit the liberal palate. In any case, I use Scripture in specific cases to demonstrate a point. Still, it's a pretty low stoop for you to say I was being dishonest in having used same. God has declared that His Word will not return unto Him void, I love the Scriptures and I will continue to put His Word out there when I deem it to be apt.

The Democrats whom you never miss an opportunity to defend, certainly have a rich history of blaming Republicans for their own treachery with the people's business. This time however, the entire US Congress has been completely bypassed as nobody knows what the heck is going on. And if memory serves, is it not they who control the purse strings around here? Isn't money supposed to be appropriated at the federal level? If Dobbs is right, and we have sent or are in the process of sending more than 33 billion to Iran, it would still be outrageous even if we did owe the now infamous frozen assets to them. The total amount frozen in US banks was only 1.9 billion. The rest of the 33 billion Dobbs reported on is for what?

[The Urban Sombrero]

I realize that Biblical truths and wisdom seem vague to you. That's why you're constantly misinterpreting Scripture and building cases which suit the liberal palate. In any case, I use Scripture in specific cases to demonstrate a point. Still, it's a pretty low stoop for you to say I was being dishonest in having used same. God has declared that His Word will not return unto Him void, I love the Scriptures and I will continue to put His Word out there when I deem it to be apt.

The Democrats whom you never miss an opportunity to defend, certainly have a rich history of blaming Republicans for their own treachery with the people's business. This time however, the entire US Congress has been completely bypassed as nobody knows what the heck is going on. And if memory serves, is it not they who control the purse strings around here? Isn't money supposed to be appropriated at the federal level? If Dobbs is right, and we have sent or are in the process of sending more than 33 billion to Iran, it would still be outrageous even if we did owe the now infamous frozen assets to them. The total amount frozen in US banks was only 1.9 billion. The rest of the 33 billion Dobbs reported on is for what?

Had the Shah become in Iran, at the time of the Revolution, a corrupt puppet of the United States who was guilty of crimes against his own people? The answer is yes. A majority of people in Iran, and elsewhere in the Middle East view the United States as that family member who is always maneuvering and manipulating so that everything turns and flows to his/her advantage.

"America is great because America is good."

"America is a colonizing evil force corrupted beyond redemption by power and greed."

Must we sit down at one or the other end of the continuum? Nations, made up of people, and like people, are complex intertwinements and interactions of good and bad. There are no exceptions, though there are different directions on the continuum.

If the suggestion is that there are no moderates left in Iran, no people left willing to engage with the West, that does not square with reports I have seen.