How Quickly We Forget History »
Posted by: populist 1 year, 6 months ago238 Comments Report this Story
It would seem to me that somewhere in this history should be a learning experience. What is happening in the world today is not working. We are destroying the planet through greed, and terror. We are recognizing no laws but force. Human beings are reduced to statistics, and the statistics are buried to be forgotten.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 238
-
90%
populist1 year, 6 months ago
more ominously - how quickly we've forgotten the lies that got us into war - for they've appeared again - with Iran as the new enemy.
Reply-
90%
BhaktaRajPrabhu1 year, 6 months ago
Creating artificial enemies has always proved a lucrative cash-cow for the power-elite. The Bhagavad Gita describes them:
The demoniac person thinks: "So much do I have today, so much will I have tomorrow. It will increase in the future, more and more. He is my enemy, and I have killed him. My other enemies will also be killed."
The Lord also states that lust, greed, and anger are the royal roads to hell-and please don't think I'm grandstanding for one scripture over another. Praise God: ALL scriptures are for our benefit.
People who are like the Gita describes are beyond being reached by reason and sweet words. Yes, we may fight them if need be. However, they've become more skilled at their game-aided by their "gophers" and spin-doctors. Therefore, we need to put the Golden Rule into effect, and encourage others to act in kind - until the evil ones clearly stand out and have no more rocks under which to hide nor people to buy off with their filty lucre.
Reply-
0%
espse1 year, 6 months ago
Try making that statement without all the religious nonsense. BTW, if there is any proof of the existance of "the Lord", please produce it. Otherwise, I have to assume you are brainwashed. The "gita", it was written by men for their own purposes, unless you can prove otherwise. Same as the bible or the koran, bunch of fairy tales, lies and half-truths.
Reply -
40%
ScottMiller1 year, 6 months ago
Wow, and I thought the article was a comparison of Palestine and the Warsaw ghetto.
Back to the actual article, the author draws some fairly thin parallels in an effort to create the illusion of credibility for his thesis. The fundamental flaw is that the Jews and the Palestinians have been at each others throats since the Palestinians were called Philistines.
We are just witness to the latest incarnation of a very long rivalry. Both sides of this tit for tat feud have very good reasons to hate the other and it is very easy to pick a bad guy. The problem is that the bad guy changes depending on how far back you want to go.
The bottom line is that while both sides like to invoke history and religion as a justification for the current conflict, this war is about two peoples who are simply unwilling to get along.
Reply
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
92%
Meimei531 year, 6 months ago
As my Lt. Col. (in Iraq 1 yr) sibling said, Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMDs. All information pointed in that direction. He may have been bluffing or the WMDs could be hidden in the desert. When you act upon a lie, believing it a true, YOU are not the liar. What if it HAD been true? What if no action had been taken and Saddam HAD used WMDs? Who would you be blaming then? If you think someone is going to hurt you, and that person gives you every logical reason to believe he will, you must defend yourself and others. Saddam COULD have let inspectors do their job thoroughly and kept his little dictatorship. But he wanted to pose a threat. And look where it got him. I don't believe that the 1000's of Iraqis who received medical care (they walked for miles to our military bases to rec aspirins, cold meds, and more), new schools, training, I doubt they regret Saddam was taken out with our help.
Reply-
0%
jeffery11 year, 6 months ago
Saddam had let the UN weapons inspectors do their job, they were allowed access to every facility they requested access to. Had Bush not forced the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq we would have learned that Saddam had no WMDs, period. Saddam was contained. His military was in a shambles. Had we improved relations with Iran he could have been removed in a far less devastating manner.
We wouldn't have anyone to blame because we'd know the truth. But the administration wasn'tinterested inthe truth so it set up a system to filter out the intelliegence it didn't like; Bush didn't have bad intelligence he misused intelligence.
Reply -
67%
kobzikov1 year, 6 months ago
The whole premise is wrong. Saddam didn't have WMDs and US demanded that he prove it. It's not possible to prove a negative, why is it so difficult for people to understand that no amount of inspections would have proved that?
For those who seriously believe that US invasion of Iraq was Saddam's and not Bush's fault I have a very simple task that will answer the question. Just compare the dates of when first American troops were deployed to neighboring states and the time when UN inspection regime cited non-cooperation by Iraqi government. No one in their right mind would spend resources deploying troops just to bring them back without using them.
And if that's not a clear enough indication than look into Cheney's meatings with Iraqi opposition groups and Downing street memos and they'll tell you who decided to go to war with Iraq and how that related to inspections.
Reply
-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 6 months ago
SwedNana,
Again, it does NOT matter what anyone thought or believed. What matters, and this is the ONLY thing, is what actually was. The fact is that Saddam had no WMDs and no operational WMD programs. Had BUsh not forced the UN weapons inspectors out we would have learned that. The problem with that was that would have removed the excuse Bush/Cheney needed to invade Iraq to control Middle East oil.
You right-wing morons are too much.
Reply-
0%
mrbs1 year, 6 months ago
no we wuld not have found that out.we never could have been certin.saddam was giving the inspctors the runaround.he was giving the inspectors just enough to make them think he had them without giving them proof wether they existed or not.he wanted the world to belive he had them yet have no way to prove one way or another.he needed to look like he had them in front of the arabic and presian worlds because if it was proven he did not have them he would have been taken out by both the saudis and iran.it would have been a race to see who got to him first.as for the oil we dot get control of it the iraqi govt dose whoever it is who can stand up and take control.till then at least our boys are there and not the saudis or iranians.
Reply
-
-
0%
slate1 year, 6 months ago
Populist
You have only your own preconceived notions and prejudices to claim that anything said now is a lie. I ask you to show the proof. Just because you bought the lies from Clinton and his Hordes when he was lobbing bombs into Iraq crying WMDs, then decided those same things were lies since Bush said it is hypocritical.
I've just about had the LIES about the supposed lies coming from the leftist that can't be trusted with the truth. I often wonder, how does anyone believe a side that has for a Leader someone that will argue what the meaning of 'IS' to try and win an argument?
Reply-
100%
torrent291 year, 6 months ago
I love how the wingnuts always try to pin it back on Clinton. They blithely ignore that it was Bush not Clinton that led us to war on faulty intelligence.
It was Bush not Clinton that did their best to sell the idea that Saddam had WMD.
It was Bush's Secetary of Defense not Clintons who went to the U.N. and proclaimed they had the smoking gun.
It was Bush and not Clinton who pulled weapon inspectors, it was Bush's VP who leaked the name of CIA Agents to discredit critics, it was Bush not Clinton who failed miserablye.
It is Bush who will be long remembered as a failure of a president.
I wonder, when you're sitting around wondering about Clinton, do you ever turn that critical eye to Bush. Do you ever look beyond your own prejudices and think, 'huh Bush lied to us.' I somehow doubt it.
And until you do, anything you sling about Clinton hardly bears any fruit.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 6 months ago
pop,
Wake up...these so-called lies as you say (which pop can't prove) isn't the reason Iran is our enemy...They've hated us for a long time since the time of Carter, so please spare me with your anti-American hate-speech...
Ahmadinejad wants to bring on Armageddon and with his country in economic turmoil, he has NOTHING to lose. This is coming from a guy who denies that the Holocaust EVER HAPPENED...Which is why for the life of me, I cannot believe you whacko libs want to negotiate with such thinkers...
Diplomacy has NEVER worked with any of our conflicts..."Might" has clearly worked, just ask the Japanese and Germans...
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Candida1 year, 6 months ago
I agree jovial. The sentence that really rang true to me was: "A desperate people with nothing to lose will fight to the death." This is what all rulers/politicians who contemplate war or oppression should write on the blackboard until they understand what it means.
Reply
-
-
0%
populist1 year, 6 months ago
i had absolutely NO idea pelosi wanted to "end" the war. My understanding was that she wanted to continue the status quo by approving war funding, by putting together non-binding resolutions opposing only the "surge" and not the war entirely, and the like.
that's my perception. i hope i'm wrong.
either way, we're in a bad place if we have to "hope" that some benevolent politician will save us from this mess.
Reply-
0%
Bukakke1 year, 6 months ago
The only reason to do a non-binding resolution is if you are a minority party and want to get your opinion heard. Nancy Pelosi may try to spend money like a drunkin sailor. But, she now has the power to send the boys home.
The democrats have been waiting for this power for a long time. We all voted for them to send the boys home. And they have the power to do it. WHATS TO STOP THEM?
Everyone knows Bush is stupid. There is know way in hell he could trick both the House and the Senate into supporting his troope surge.
I think the boys are comming home. It's about time.
Reply -
-
-
100%
Meimei531 year, 6 months ago
Death is sad, but it's an inevitable fact of life.
3000 deaths are horrendous, but more were lost in WWII and many of them were drafted. No draft, all volunteers now. If you are that concerned about numbers of deaths, work hard to eliminate the automobile. We lose 60,000 a year on the roads. Are those deaths less valuable, do those who die in car accidents less mourned? Is there anything more needless than a child killed by an error in judgment on the highway? There's no measuring.
Reply-
0%
AmpLee1 year, 6 months ago
((work hard to eliminate the automobile))
naw, work hard to eliminate the honey bee. You know how many people those little f***ers kill each year? damn little terrorists with wings, stinging allergic people in their gardens minding their own business.
well if we eliminate the automobile. that would reduce our dependence on oil, so what the hell, maybe you do have a point, in a round about way.
PS: volunteering to serve your country and volunteering for a big pointless sandbox of death are two different things, and if I hear one more WW2 comparison, my head may explode.
too much coffee for me
Reply -
55%
torrent291 year, 6 months ago
So you are comparing deaths by accident in a car to the deaths in Iraq?
Is that what you're saying? You're suggesting that being killed in an accident is the same as being sent across the seas to fight in a war that has long since lost its meaning and is now engaged in a civil war.
Further you try and say the WWII, where we were attacked, where our allies were attacked, is somehow comprable to the Iraq war where we were not attacked, where we were the ones who did the preemptive strike.
Thats your comparison?
Reply -
100%
populist1 year, 6 months ago
oh, THAT's funny. I wish i could find the clip, but i just heard in the last week or so Rush Limbaugh go into a tirade with the exact same argument.
"are YOU going to join me in getting legislation passed to stop auto accidents"
the logic here is absurd.
1. comparing 60,000 accidental deaths where no one is intentionally killing, with 3000 American deaths the only ones counted. Iraqi's are subhuman? they don't count?
2. claiming that since people die in another situation which is bad is NO reason to sit around and let more people die in the current situation.
by that murderous logic, since 60,000 people die in auto accidents, we shouldn't do anything to try to stop the 30,000 people who die from Hepatitis - because there's not as many who die.
come on. do people REALLY fall for this absolute garbage? does someone pay you to repeat what limbaugh says, or do you volunteer your brain to the propagandists?
silly.
Reply
-
-
100%
Spadecaller1 year, 6 months ago
There's much too much over-simplificaton to this article. It is not a black and white issue, as it was with Nazi Germany and the Jews of Poland. There are many Israelis willing to respect a peaceful and just settlement, if Hamas will acknowledge Israel's sovereign right to exist, as well.
Continuing to be the founding principle of Hamas is their goal which calls for the total destruction of Israel. To omit that integral fact tends to demonize Israel and it only perpetuates the war of propaganda, which must first be settled before a true peaceful understanding can began be achieved.
Reply
