Scary thought, isn't it?
 

If Hillary is qualified to be president than I guess Laura Bush is equally qualified. Hmmmm?
Seriously. The only thing Hillary did was try and socialize oour healthcare, and failed. And she couldn't figure out Bill was Cheating. She's stupid.
 

FDNY Firefighters’ Own Words Wage War on 9/11 Theorists!

Check out the firsthand accounts of 9/11 just posted in my latest blog entry. Villifying Bush is the easiest thing you can do. Researching and thinking for yourself is the hardest.

Expect a firestorm of comments to come... Please subscribe to my blog.
-KJ
 

Horrifying is more appropriate...you know things are screwed when the leading candidate says Bush Co is not being harsh enough...
 

Hillary is leading by what measure?

Not this:


Not this:
Google Search Popularity Trend History

Not this:
Ron Paul wins more Straw Polls than all candidates combined

Not this:
Ron Paul gets higher debate percentages than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat

Let's face it, the only source telling us that Hillary is the leading candidate is the corporate news, the same source that tells us NAFTA Superhighway plans do not exist.
 

And so I support Dennis. He is the one candidate who has not supported the war or funding for it.

He has some great ideas.
 

Yeah, that's who I want... Dennis 2008!
 

He is gaining in momentum. I read the other day that Sean Penn endorsed him as a candidate.
 

When you say, "these statements come while completely ignoring Israel's nuclear weapons program," what's your point? Surely you aren't suggesting that Israel would use nuclear weapons against us, so what is it you are saying? Or was that simply a gratuitous dig at Israel?
 

I have a problem, as we all should, with ANY country utilizing nuclear technology for weaponry. The point being, that it is contradictory to condemn one country for their supposed desire to gain nuclear technology while ignoring the fact that another has the technology AND the weaponry. There was a time, when it was believed that nuclear weaponry was so horrific, world entities agreed to do what they could to reduce them. Part of that agreement, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signatories could enrich uranium for energy. Iran is a signatory of that treaty and the desire to use it for energy is legitimate and legal.
As far as Israel being the subject of the comment, we are discussing Iran. If we were to discuss India and Pakistan, I would share the same contempt for any hypocrisies shown by the US. For example, if we were to tell India it was ok for them but not for Pakistan the same would hold. The idea that "we" determine who should and who should not have these types of weapons is absurd. It is based on the flawed ideology, that "we" are so wonderful, great and right, it is ok for US to have them and use them....it is racist.
 

"The point being that it is contradictory to condemn one country..."

To which I can only reply, "bull." What one country does (or doesn't) should have little to do with what another country does. However, even disregarding that obvious fact, you have specifically chosen to condemn one country -- Israel. You make no mention of any of the other nuclear powers, yet you find time and room to condemn Israel. Had you kept your discussion to Iran, as you claim, it would have been more meaningful. Had you kept your criticism merely to Hillary, it would have been more meaningful. You chose not to. You chose to offer a totally gratuitous condemnation of Israel.

There is truth, and there is fiction. You write fiction as well as you write the truth. I'm just not certain you can tell the difference.

Unfortunately, right and wrong often play no role in these matters. It may be that the use of nuclear weapons is wrong, or immoral, but so is the stated desire to destroy another people -- another country. Israel has no intent to destroy any other country, it merely desires to defend itself from those who would happily destroy it.

Do I support Israel in everything it does? Absolutely not. But I do support it's right to defend itself. Apparently, you would rather see Israel cease to exist than to use nuclear weapons, and you are free to hold that preference. Just try being honest about your bias, you bigotry, and your hatred. And know that the Jews of Israel will not march quietly into your ovens ... this time.
 

"Just try being honest about your bias, you bigotry, and your hatred. And know that the Jews of Israel will not march quietly into your ovens ... this time."

Pretty much speechless here...
 

Well that was dramatic... and uncalled for... and basically a long bit of rhetorical masturbation.

Someone here is very biased... and I don't think it's Jen.

But you know... way to go on randomly inserting your vitriolic dissent.

Kudos to you!
 

Comrade,
The bias against Israel is apparent in many of Jennifer's blogs. Calling her on it may cause her to open her eyes and return to a more balanced view.
I believe our goverment has been biased towerds Israel since 1948 but that does not make Israel the enemy.
I hope a contrary view is still welcomed on this blog !!!
 

you define the following calling someone on their bias?
Apparently, you would rather see Israel cease to exist than to use nuclear weapons, and you are free to hold that preference. Just try being honest about your bias, you bigotry, and your hatred. And know that the Jews of Israel will not march quietly into your ovens ... this time.
- i define that as an overactive imagination and bias.

please indicate where Jenn said anything to the effect of This TIME WE are going to do it right and march all the jews into ovens. Don't you think that's a bit too far? first it implies that Jenn is a Fascist and a Nazi. From several conversations with her she supports neither the nazi movement, nor national socialism, nor does she support Aryan Ideology and or white supremacy.

I would not call this calling someone on it, i would call it extremism and slander.
I do not think a single person here wants that atrocity to happen ever again, specifically against anyone.

Tony you calling for a more balanced view is like the pot calling the kettle black, how LIBERAL and COMMUNIST is your ideology and or blogs? you do not preach balance you preach one side and one agenda. Hence the term Comrade.
Hence your support of Hillary Clinton and her communist agenda and your all liberal blogs that have NO BALANCE in them what so ever.

If you want true balance or someone else to do what you say not what you do, you need to practice it first, lead by example.
 

Tony,
I happen to take an interest in the Middle East for various reasons, mostly historical and theological. The human rights abuses committed by the US and Israel are unconscionable and I will continue to speak out against them just like I would the human rights abuses of ANY government entity. At this point OUR country is in the Middle East occupying it and is responsible for the oppression, murder, torture, and displacement of millions of Arabs. I will not stand idly by while these crimes are being committed by MY government, which is also why I take a particular interest in the area now.
Contrary views are and have been welcome on my blog, I am not, however interested in sending Jews to the ovens and Lou above suggested. I find it hypocritical when our government breaks treaties we are signatories to, then turns around and condemns and threatens another country that is abiding by that same treaty (Iran). I frankly don't care what names of which countries are placed in the blanks. Pointing that out does not make me interested in exterminating Jews.
 

Ahh, Jennifer, but you DON'T speak out against the human rights abuses of your favorite Arab countries, while you do condemn Israel and the US. Over and over.
 

Lou,
We, Israel and the US are supposed to be Democracy's. The beacon of freedom and human rights. The only analogy I can think of here is that I am more infuriated with the Democrats than the Republicans right now. Reason being, the Democrats were placed into office with a directive from the American people, "Get us our of Iraq!" They have given lip service simply to further their political careers. At least the Republicans are telling us who they are and what they stand for, during the debates they supported the continued suspension of Habeas Corpus, the enlargement of Gitmo, and the continued occupation of Iraq. I have more respect for a someone who is at least honest about what they believe, than someone who lies and then does the opposite.
When a country like Israel, founded on the basis of rescuing those who had been the victims of genocide, torture and the most inhumane (regardless of race or religion) it should be the very light against any atrocities against mankind. The crime against the Jews during WWII and before are crimes against us ALL...as are any other crimes against humanity. Let us get those who espouse freedom, human rights, and justice to be what they say they are.
 

Reason being, the Democrats were placed into office with a directive from the American people, "Get us our of Iraq!" They have given lip service simply to further their political careers

COME ON. You know the dems control the senate by the slimmest of margens and until we get a dem president, that aint gonna change. Now , I will back you 100 percent if and when that does happen if the dems. act like you say they will.
btw I know you do your research and I respect your opinion. There are leaders in israel as well as the arab world that would like nothing better then to remove their enemy from the face of the earth. they are not in the majority and we should be using our influence to find common ground with the majority of the people in the Middle East.
 

Do I support Israel in everything it does? Absolutely not. But I do support it's right to defend itself. Apparently, you would rather see Israel cease to exist than to use nuclear weapons, and you are free to hold that preference. Just try being honest about your bias, you bigotry, and your hatred. And know that the Jews of Israel will not march quietly into your ovens ... this time.
wow there is some serious fear behind these words.
I speak with Jenn from time to time and i hate to burst your fiction you are attempting to write as truth but she does not want to see any Jews marched into any ovens LOU.

"To which I can only reply, "bull." What one country does (or doesn't) should have little to do with what another country does."
- Lou this statment in and of itself is untrue. If this was the fact there would be no conflicts between the US and many other nations. In fact historically this has been largely untrue. The closest we came to upholding this sentiment was the Monroe Doctrine. since WWII the US has been very active in taking actions against other nations when they saw fit to do so based upon the actions of another nation.

Israel being an ally having access to Nukes in the middle east is something of a concern just as would be any other nation developing them currently. personally i am opposed to the idea of such devices and so should you be as well. As a nation which is an ally of the US. It just happens to be a bit of a concern in a largely destabilized region.

I think i will let your own words summarize your own argument:
There is truth, and there is fiction. You write fiction as well as you write the truth. I'm just not certain you can tell the difference.

It may be that the use of nuclear weapons is wrong, or immoral, but so is the stated desire to destroy another people -- another country.
- MAY be? is there any question about the sheer destructive power a nuke possesses? Is there any question of the morality of such devices?

Israel has no intent to destroy any other country, it merely desires to defend itself from those who would happily destroy it.
- Hmm i will disagree on this one aspect, Israel has an intent to see another nation destroyed when it condones the use of a nuclear strike on another nation. Or when it works in tandem with a US strike to destroy a people who have not acted in aggression. Or do you beleive that someone's presumed intent is enough to unleash a nuclear assault and bombing campaigns against their nation because of the views of the leader?
 

Fourfingers, unlike you (and Jenn) I do not claim any moral superiority. I do not purport to define right or wrong, morality or immorality. I don't know that nuclear devices are themselves either moral or immoral. Is a pen which writes immoral words itself either moral or immoral? I think now. It is a device lacking in morality. People who use such devices may be moral or immoral, not their devices. Try to make the distinction.

If Jenn has no desire to see Jews and/or Israel annihilated, then she should not write the words that suggest otherwise. I know her only through what she has written.

The Monroe Doctrine today bears little relevance to what "should" or "ought" to be. In an idealized world, what "should be" would be. I recognize that this is NOT an ideal world. My hope is to make it a little better.

I join you in being uncomfortable with the existence of nuclear weapons. However, my concern is more universal than yours or Jenns, as I am concerned by ALL nuclear weapons, not particularly those in the possession of Israel.

In your final paragraph, you say Israel has a certain intent "when" it condones certain actions. However, I am not aware that Israel has condoned such actions, nor am I as prepared as you to ascribe intent to anybody's actions. Of course, the views of a leader of a country take on significance when those views are translated into actions by that country. For example, Hitler had certain views which might have remained insignificant, but somehow they became quite significant. Perhaps you would feel it unnecessary to defend yourself until you found yourself inside one of his gas chambers with the gas being turned on. I think there are certain lessons that even you might learn from history.
 

Fourfingers, unlike you (and Jenn) I do not claim any moral superiority.
- oh yes, you claim to be a victim. where is there any clear moral superiority claimed? I think people are all individuals with certain unalienable rights. What does that mean to you? Does that mean that i am superior? or that all of us are now equal?

I do not purport to define right or wrong, morality or immorality. I don't know that nuclear devices are themselves either moral or immoral.
- nuclear weapons serve to eradicate human life. Is killing people a good or evil quality Lou? does a leader of a country authorize the USE of Nukes against another people to bless them with gifts because the use of that weapon is one of good nature? is it their benevolence? Are they specific enough to target only those who are in conflict with the country that launched the nuclear arsenal leaving unharmed those who are innocent civilians and do not share the leadership of their country's Ideals? Seriously how can you claim not to know that the use of tactical nuclear devices is not a morally wrong one? it is not superiority it is common ethics. if i create a virus to erradicate all human life on the earth is my action one of good or evil? if it is designed to prevent people to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then by all means i have infringed upon their rights that i hold dear. It would be morally unethical to make such a device, even further to use it. To claim it as defensive is to claim ignorance to the fact that it would be also taking the lives of those who do not share the opinions of your specific target and or enemy. So in effect it is a device used to target a civilian population for mass destruction. IN unethical terms, they are only collateral damage. But for the sake of showing how STUPID your argument is. You would rather state you hold no position on them. really? then let Iran have nuclear weapons okay Lou? why would you be opposed to anyone having nuclear weapons in the middle east? After all it's a position you do not take to determine the ethics and moral position of the possession and use of such weapons.

People who use such devices may be moral or immoral, not their devices. Try to make the distinction.
- anyone who does not make the distinction that such devices themselves are based on a devalued moral compass should seek professional help.

If Jenn has no desire to see Jews and/or Israel annihilated, then she should not write the words that suggest otherwise. I know her only through what she has written.
- no you know her through Victim goggles. Jenn has not preached the destruction of Jews nor the killing of Jews. Your garbage you are spewing is from your own fear and victim mentality.


I join you in being uncomfortable with the existence of nuclear weapons. However, my concern is more universal than yours or Jenns, as I am concerned by ALL nuclear weapons, not particularly those in the possession of Israel.
- You should have stopped with the first sentence. You are saying you know what my view is and what Jenn's is and have completely missed the point of what she has said and what i have said. i am opposed to Nukes at all, in fact most weaponry i am opposed to. Anything that can harm civilians as collateral damage i am opposed to. Since you make statements about my viewpoints maybe you should LEARN what they are. because i am opposed to anyone having nukes, or any other weapon of mass destruction. Jenn can speak for her own views.

The Monroe Doctrine today bears little relevance to what "should" or "ought" to be. In an idealized world, what "should be" would be. I recognize that this is NOT an ideal world. My hope is to make it a little better.
- the point of mentioning it was lost when you chose to argue against it.

Do you feel that because one country's leader has spoken out against Zionism he wants the death of all of Israel? if so why has this same leader not been busy killing Israeli's in his own country?

Of course, the views of a leader of a country take on significance when those views are translated into actions by that country.
- so you are saying a leader speaks for all of his people? because there are some awesome story's of actions of people within the country and other country's occupied by the Nazi Reich that showed they did not only not agree with Hitler but his party;s views and that they worked in secret against them and him. yet you would say that all of those under Hitler were bad? i disagree each individual has to be looked at for their own actions. Just as i would say each american has to be looked at under their own merit because not all of them are good people either.


Perhaps you would feel it unnecessary to defend yourself until you found yourself inside one of his gas chambers with the gas being turned on. I think there are certain lessons that even you might learn from history.
- Yes i learned an even bigger lesson that IF it be GOD's will i can not change anything. NOT ONE THING. I will trust in HIM to defend me, protect me, and if it is my time to die then i will die. If I die unjustly then HE shall avenge me.
I do not fear death as you do. your arguemnt is a presupposition of my fear of being a victim.
i am not a victim. Why would i comply with a corrupt regime? fear of death? wouldn't my compliance get me killed anyways? so what's the point?

Lou you don't know my views nor Jenn's you assume you do. You stated something falsely and i have pointed it out, you made a comment back based on a question i asked in regards to the hint of a future nuclear strike against Iran lead by Israeli air strikes. It was a question not a fact. You took it as a fact, i asked a hypothetical question


If Israel condones a nuclear response by supporting militarily the actions of a nuclear strike of such magnitude and nature against Iran by the US then would you say that it then supports the very nature of the attack and intent of the attack even if unjustified? using such weapons is intent to destroy and harm people, civilians, people with whom may have no quarrel against Israel. It's a hypothetical scenario but one that has been time and time again mentioned in the media and even the Israeli's that i know and spend time with here say the same thing that Their country will lead air strikes against Iran. They also confirmed the bombing in Syria of a speculated construction site for a nuclear facility. Preemptive strikes show aggressive tendency and are seen as such in many cases. I understand the desire to protect ones self. I do not see the need to do so unless Iran starts attacking Israel which so far it has not done so or do you know something i do not about this situation?
 

Wrong. I do NOT claim to be a victim.

While I agree that a person using a nuclear weapon MIGHT be guilty of immorality, I do not agree that the weapon itself has some intrinsic immorality, nor am I prepared to make a judgment applying to all circumstances where such a weapon could be used. "The term 'morality' can be used either descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons." [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/] Morality applies only to the conduct of human beings. An object, without any power of thought or choice, is hardly capable of adhering to a code of conduct, whether it be moral or immoral.

Thank you for your advice that I seek professional help, if that was your intent, but I do make the distinction. If I understand you correctly, you are the one who fails to make that distinction.

As I indicated, Jenn's words seem to me to express a certain desire for the annihilation of Israel. She has not preached it, possibly because she recognizes that to do so would cause her to lose credibility. Perhaps I interpret her words incorrectly; nevertheless, without any victim's goggles or other aids, that remains how I interpret her words. I would hope to be in error. Your words will not so convince me.

Again, both your words and Jenn's focused on Israel's weapons, without a similar focus on others. I apologize if I have misinterpreted your views, although I knew those views only from what you had written. Your most recent reply (above) elaborates somewhat on your previous words. Meanwhile, Jenn, as you so aptly point out, is free to express her thoughts for herself. If I have misinterpreted her views, I will apologize to her also.

No, I am not saying that any leader speaks for all of his/her people. Did you somehow read that into my words? If so, then clearly I did a poor job of expressing myself, and I apologize. Actions, however, speak for themselves in an entirely different way.

While I fear dying, I do not fear death, nor do I share your view that God's will dictates what will happen to me. Surely your God has better things to do than to control how I live, or even how I die. However, if you believe so strongly in God's will, why is it that an instrument of God's will, such as a nuclear weapon, could be considered immoral? Surely, if you believe so strongly in God's will, then the use of nuclear weapons must also be God's will. Are those who serve God's will immoral?

Finally, asking hypothetical questions is an excellent way to create an impossible situation for a person to answer. I try to point out that the basis for a hypothetical needs to be established before the hypothetical can be answered. The situation you posed is NOT a fact, and it requires a rebuttal less people think it is a fact. I might unfairly ask you if you have stopped beating your wife yet, and asking the question suggests that you have a wife and that you have beaten her. It might be that neither is the case, but asking the question raises the inference.
 

As I indicated, Jenn's words seem to me to express a certain desire for the annihilation of Israel.

annihilation

Wow. That is a strong word. At least you admit that it is YOUR INTERPRETATION of her words, because I have been reading her blogs for almost a year now and I don't interpret them that way.
 

Wrong. I do NOT claim to be a victim.
- your words of fear constantly point to the fact you most certainly assert you do claim the victim mentality.

While I agree that a person using a nuclear weapon MIGHT be guilty of immorality, I do not agree that the weapon itself has some intrinsic immorality, nor am I prepared to make a judgment applying to all circumstances where such a weapon could be used.
- then you ignore the value of a human life. Something that both the Laws of GOD and the philosophy of the US constitution expressly show me are to be upheld. That each person is an individual and deserve to enjoy those unalienable rights. The use of such a weapon's aim to END life has one purpose, to end life. Unless you can sight for me where the use of a Nuclear weapon has thus Created life. I mean then it wouldn't be considered a weapon now would it?
Thus the root of the weapon is an immoral one.

The rest of your argument on the morality of the use of nuclear weapons is semantics so either you are for it's use or against it's use. The very nature of the device created is with the sole purpose of use against people and thus a moral value is then attached to it by the very act with which it would be used. It is made to end MASSIVE amounts of life, not benefit them. Even arguing that petty point is pathetic!

Thank you for your advice that I seek professional help, if that was your intent, but I do make the distinction. If I understand you correctly, you are the one who fails to make that distinction.
- once again the victim mentality shines through, i said ANYONE, not Lou.
But hey if the shoe fits and you do not feel that a nuclear weapon is at it's root a destructive force created by man to end massive amounts of life and that is it's sole purpose then by all means Lou please get some help. At least learn to value other human life.

As I indicated, Jenn's words seem to me to express a certain desire for the annihilation of Israel. She has not preached it, possibly because she recognizes that to do so would cause her to lose credibility. Perhaps I interpret her words incorrectly; nevertheless, without any victim's goggles or other aids, that remains how I interpret her words. I would hope to be in error. Your words will not so convince me.
- because you would rather paint yourself the victim and prefer to read things that are not there. you discredit yourself in attempting to attach claims that she has never made. It's like claiming someone is a witch and then burning them with out evidence to suggest such a thing.


Again, both your words and Jenn's focused on Israel's weapons, without a similar focus on others. I apologize if I have misinterpreted your views,
- because you can only see your views, if you were sorry you would apologize retract your statment and shut up! BUT, you didn't do that so then you are not sorry you are playing semantics again.

although I knew those views only from what you had written. Your most recent reply (above) elaborates somewhat on your previous words. Meanwhile, Jenn, as you so aptly point out, is free to express her thoughts for herself. If I have misinterpreted her views, I will apologize to her also.
- NO you assumed those views and assumptions are dangerous. As you have tried to paint a picture with out full knowledge of a situation. You tried to bring a charge against someone who has said nothing of the sort and you continue to do so. Once again look at the context of the message that Hillary was discussing and look at what Jenn addressed if you bothered to read beyond your personal issues and agenda you might be able to see what other people here see and realize NO ONE is saying lets eradicate Israel on this blog. NO ONE, except you saying we are saying that.

No, I am not saying that any leader speaks for all of his/her people. Did you somehow read that into my words? If so, then clearly I did a poor job of expressing myself, and I apologize. Actions, however, speak for themselves in an entirely different way.
- who's actions? the people? are you once again bringing a collectivist mindset to the table and judging individuals on the actions of the 1 or the many? It sounds that way. once again you are taking things out of context ( something you do rather often) and applying an apology after the fact with out retracting your flawed argument and statements. You are not sorry if you were you would apologize and not add the word IF. When i am wring and i have offended someone i ask their forgiveness and apologize and admit I was wrong then I shut up for a while. The WORD IF I offended never escapes my lips because it is not IF it is clear I offended.
at 63 you should have taken some responsibility for yourself. My children take more responsibility for their own behavior then you do. When they do things wrong they admit to it.

While I fear dying, I do not fear death,
- is there a difference? from what you constantly post about you obviously do.

nor do I share your view that God's will dictates what will happen to me.
- you don't have to, that's what is great about being alive.

Surely your God has better things to do than to control how I live, or even how I die.
- i did not say control, but there is an appointment and each of us has to keep it.

However, if you believe so strongly in God's will, why is it that an instrument of God's will, such as a nuclear weapon, could be considered immoral?
- i do not consider nuclear weapons an instrument of GOD but of wicked men. Once again you are bringing a strawman to the table and playing semantics. Either you are opposed to nukes or you are not. You can keep playing semantics all day long but the more you do the more you justify my point that you are not what you present yourself to be.
Are you in support of Nukes or not?
if you are then your earlier claims discredit you, if you are not then your current claims lead me to ask why you are trying to even argue that point? is it to attempt to regain some lost credibility yourself or to attempt to save face? to have an edge in an arguemnt? what is the gain and goal for even asking if you do not support nukes? why do you even bother with these useless points?

if you believe so strongly in God's will, then the use of nuclear weapons must also be God's will.
- I beleive in GOD yes and HIS desire for all man to know HIM, but not at the hand of destruction and violence.
Are those who serve God's will immoral?
- are there any who are not without stain?

Finally, asking hypothetical questions is an excellent way to create an impossible situation for a person to answer. I try to point out that the basis for a hypothetical needs to be established before the hypothetical can be answered. The situation you posed is NOT a fact, and it requires a rebuttal less people think it is a fact. I might unfairly ask you if you have stopped beating your wife yet, and asking the question suggests that you have a wife and that you have beaten her. It might be that neither is the case, but asking the question raises the inference.
- there is a clear distinctions. you would have a point to ask that question of me if I had stopped beating my wife if it was publicly claimed in the media that I beat my wife. But since it is not, there is only an assumption.
However with the Iran scenario there has been several articles and pieces covered by the media discussing an Israeli lead Iranian attack, i wanted your thoughts on the subject matter regarding intent, because you brought it up, so i positioned the question before you tog et your answer. if you can't answer the question just say so. It's clear you are not going to answer the questions asked of you or you would have, once again thank you for discrediting your own arguments and showing your victim mentality and presuppositions. No one here that i know wants the death of Israel despite what you would like to think.

you are good at avoiding answering questions terrible at making assumptions.
 

Instead of attacking Lou, you should consider his points. Alot of people would consider them valid, as do I.
 

regarding Tony:
Instead of attacking Lou, you should consider his points. Alot of people would consider them valid, as do I.
1. Lou is a big boy and can stick up for himself.
2. I don't see you or anyone else sticking up for me when he's associating me falsely with a vision and desire to see Harm come To Israel that i do not intend.

perhaps i have not made my view of Nuclear war clear enough.
The writer of the following blog has had the ability to meet with someone personally and tell his story. I know the writer as an acquaintance. This is not sensationalism this is directly from an eye witness to the events and the sole survivor of 10 people walked through the aftermath of Nagasaki.
It is short and to the point and it only barely gives you a glimpse of the aftermath, not even the heart of those who in an instant lost their lives, men, women, and children.
http://marcpix.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html

3. I sent you a message you can feel free to respond to, i am curious what your answers are regarding the questions positioned to you.
 

Thank you Tony. As for Fourfingers, I do not feel obligated to answer any of his questions,
- of course not becuase they expose your viewpoints.

nor to respond to any more of his blather.
- the constitution of the united states is blather? viewing people as individuals and not collective terms is blather? Who's the one shouting you might change your mind when they come to put you in ovens or in the showers and turn on the gas? because i won't agree with your viewpoint that even Israel should have nukes. IMO no one should have them but you lumped me into some twisted concept that I hate Israel and therefore am against them. Which is absurd and ridiculous. I just don't agree with most governments but then that must make me bad

I will, however, answer one particular question as succinctly as possible. No, I am not "in support of nukes." Fourfingers will take that answer to mean one thing, and I intend it to mean something else, so let me elaborate.

First, it is conceivable that a nuclear weapon could be used for purposes other than the destruction of mankind. It could, for example, be used to either enhance human life or even to save mankind in a manner similar to those depicted in current science fiction. In such a case, there would be nothing wrong or "immoral" with either the nuke itself, nor the use of it.
- conceivably yes but that's science fiction and not what they are designed for. Another semantic.

Second, a nuclear weapon could be used to take the lives of an aggressor who otherwise threatened the lives of those in possession of the "nuke." Such usage would constitute what is commonly known as self-defense, an act which is consistent with my concept of morality.
- self defense that eradicates other human beings thata re not part of the conflict is good? thank you for supporting my arguments i do not se how you can say you support Nukes in self defense even when they do huge environmental harm lasting several generations, the casualty rate for civilians is high as well. If that is morally acceptable to you. Then i seriously don;t know how you can value any human life. i value even the life of those who hate me. Even those who would want me dead.

It is my hope that neither situation ever arises, and it also is my hope that nuclear weapons never are used. I do not "support" nukes. I also understand, though, that there may be times when the use of nuclear weapons is something that I could support. Unlike some people, I do not see the world as all black and white, lacking shades of gray. There are those who would try to paint it that way, but life is not so simplistic.
- you have already come in here presenting the same black and white case. You did so on your own blog regarding health care in colorado. seriously you are a walking contradiction. It;s entirely BLACK AND WHITE by your own wording.

Fourfingers, unfortunately, is prone to attacking those with whom he disagrees rather than paying attention to the issues. I have tried to avoid responding in kind.
_ LOl Lou thank you for discrediting your argument again. i am not atatcking anyone Just your collectivist mindset. it;s the views you present not you. Except for where you come in with your It;s okay for me to say these people want to place Jews in Ovens and they hate Israeli's because I LOU say so. Lou please get a grip. When you refuse to apologize about insinuating comments like that you discredit yourself, you offered an apology my 4 year old knows better then to offier. When he does something wrong he says I am sorry is aid that. NOt I am sorry IF you felt offended. that's not Sorry that's word games to make the person feel better and you have no change of heart or position. If you feel you were justified by your statements hen you are a racist. hand down you support a collectivist mindset that says anyone who says anything other then Israel is great, is racist. when in reality i say there is something wrong with ALL governments. A Nuclear weapon HAS NO value what so ever except to end life. If it can be turned to a good cause fantastic! but for what it is designed for. It's to cause the mass destruction of life.
 

Thank you Tony. As for Fourfingers, I do not feel obligated to answer any of his questions, nor to respond to any more of his blather. I will, however, answer one particular question as succinctly as possible. No, I am not "in support of nukes." Fourfingers will take that answer to mean one thing, and I intend it to mean something else, so let me elaborate.

First, it is conceivable that a nuclear weapon could be used for purposes other than the destruction of mankind. It could, for example, be used to either enhance human life or even to save mankind in a manner similar to those depicted in current science fiction. In such a case, there would be nothing wrong or "immoral" with either the nuke itself, nor the use of it.

Second, a nuclear weapon could be used to take the lives of an aggressor who otherwise threatened the lives of those in possession of the "nuke." Such usage would constitute what is commonly known as self-defense, an act which is consistent with my concept of morality.

It is my hope that neither situation ever arises, and it also is my hope that nuclear weapons never are used. I do not "support" nukes. I also understand, though, that there may be times when the use of nuclear weapons is something that I could support. Unlike some people, I do not see the world as all black and white, lacking shades of gray. There are those who would try to paint it that way, but life is not so simplistic.

Fourfingers, unfortunately, is prone to attacking those with whom he disagrees rather than paying attention to the issues. I have tried to avoid responding in kind.
 

No Lou...think about it...the US platform is to attack anyone who has the capability of creating nuclear arms...and to say no one else should have them...yet we do nothing about Israel, while they have them and have displayed open hostility and attacked their neighbors for 50 years...if we say our stand is to prevent anyone from having them, then why aren't we concerned with Israel having them?...kinda contradictory Lou...so don't act indignant that someone points out the falicy, just because it has implications for someone you are in support of, doesn't make it any less true.
 

The fallacy is that Israel "has attacked their neighbors for 50 years." Where do you come up with garbage like this?

The truth is that Israel has defended itself from the attacks of others. The truth is that Israel does not intend to eradicate any other country, but there is another country which has stated its intent to eradicate Israel. Apparently, you join Jenn in her desire to make that possible. So be it.

My point, however, was that the condemnation of Israel was gratuitous to an otherwise meaninful blog. It was unnecessary. It was irrelevant. Likewise, had Jenn chosen any other nuclear power to condemn (e.g. France), that, too, would have been gratuitous. She chose to condemn Israel because that is her nature, not because it added to the point she was making. She chose to condemn Israel because that is her wont.
 

The truth is that Israel has defended itself from the attacks of others. The truth is that Israel does not intend to eradicate any other country, but there is another country which has stated its intent to eradicate Israel.
- what country is that Lou?

Apparently, you join Jenn in her desire to make that possible. So be it.
- more fiction i see.

My point, however, was that the condemnation of Israel was gratuitous to an otherwise meaningful blog. It was unnecessary. It was irrelevant.
- the relevance is the support of Israel which has nukes (allegedly) and yet the enforcement of other countries not to have nukes. Are nukes a defensive or offensive weapon?

I don't see her words as condemning of Israel but of Condemning our foreign policy regarding the relationship between Israel and all other middle eastern countries that have tactical nukes or the development of even atomic energy.
unfortunately you see things through these lovely blinders.
The relevance to the subject matter was that Hillary was at an AIPAC meeting, which is an Israeli Lobby and discussed the issue of a Nuclear armed Iran and not a nuclear armed Israel. It's a bit hypocritical on her part.
Does Israel having nukes pose a threat to anyone else?
Are Nukes a defensive or offensive weapon?

The truth is that Israel has defended itself from the attacks of others.
- i think some people might not agree with you. George Galloway for one.

likewise, had Jenn chosen any other nuclear power to condemn (e.g. France), that, too, would have been gratuitous.
- largely because France agreed to disarm it's own nukes, poor choice. Pakistan and India would have been a better choice. But the issue was not Pakistan, it was Iran and Iran's nuclear proliferation or so the media , president, and Hillary Clinton would want us to believe. It was at an Israeli Lobby meeting and she was speaking on the matter. The relevance remains.
 

Great blog! This is why I would prefer any democrat except Hillary.... ok, I'm a little biased towards one ;-) and in case you missed it, Obama's pulled into the lead in Iowa. It's essentially a tight race now between Obama & Hillary with Edwards not too far behind.

Hillary is focusing on what she thinks she needs to say now to fight the republicans in a general election, that they won't be able to hold foreign policy against her if she's been with them all along. I take a big issue that she thinks she has to agree with them to win. We should not be in Iraq and would sure as hell should not be going to Iran.
 

"Hillary is focusing on what she thinks she needs to say now to fight the republicans in a general election"

I am not too sure about this...if the war is so unpopular, why would she need to compete with those who are committing political suicide by supporting it?

I would prefer my dog over Hillary!!!! :)
 

"if the war is so unpopular, why would she need to compete with those who are committing political suicide by supporting it?"

good point, perhaps her siding with these issues is less to do with taking out obstacles in November and more about a true agenda. I guess I didn't really consider that possibility before.
 

I think she is probably looking towards her second term and skirts the issues as best as she can. She realizes the war is unpopular so she says things like, I will have combat troops out beginning 2009. She says this hoping above all else people will not make the distinction between combat troops and permanent bases. I am sure her motives are multi-faceted and we will never totally understand, but on thing is for sure, we will stay in Iraq and possibly attack Iran if she is elected.
 

All I know is this: I WILL NOT VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN or A CLINTON. IT'S WAY PAST TIME FOR A CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

GAWD! It is like they are a bunch of criminals!!! And not just criminals in the sense of comitting crime, it is like they are perpetrating organized crime.
 

What else would you call it when a group of people purposely and repeatedly break the law? When they have hierarchical organizations dedicated to the perpetuation of their lawlessness? Organized crime is the only thing that fits the bill.
 

That's exactly what it is.

respect,
4
 

Simplistically, I want this madness to end! I truly don't believe Hillary is our way out... I am supporting Kucinich for that very reason. Thanks for the informative blog!

~Teresa
 

Anyone who votes for Hilary is essentially voting for another Bush. Just because she's not of the same party doesn't mean she isn't on the same team. I like both Kucinich and Ron Paul and I will vote for either of those.
 

Anyone who votes for Hilary is essentially voting for another Bush.
translated in political speak, neolibs and neocons are really one in the same. Just different ways of achieving the same ends.



Great blog Jen!
 

And that is a message I wish would get through to the progressive community! It appears that they do not understand this simple truth.

Thanks Paul...nice to "see" ya!
 

And...to add to your comment. People do not seem to realize that corporate power was INCREASED under Clinton...
 

replace the word GLOBALIST with Jesuit.
 

Creepy thought .What frightens me most is that we may not be able to get solidly behind the democratic candidate, and though Kucinich is my favorite, a Paul-Kucinich block could divide the progressive anti-war vote, like
Kinky Friedmans candidacy in Texas divided the democatic vote so that Perry the Goon wins another four years as governor.
I love Kinky, but didn't think he would make a good govenor. Republicans give money to
their opposition candidates sometimes to divide the vote.You have here pointed out their
financially nefarious influence on Hilary.They are not above such contributions to democatic candidates they think that can be divided and conquered, an old old but very effective ploy.While the Democans(Hilary)
and Repubicrats fight it out , if it seems pointless to vote, another case of money funding EVIL AND LESSER EVIL, because the pesidency is BOUGHT, I'll write you in as a candidadte, Jennifer.
 

LOL...I am afraid you will be my only vote!
 

I will tell you right now, the idea of voting for Hillary because she is a woman makes me sick! It is essentially the same thing as voting for a man because he is a man. It is sexist and certainly naive.
 

the fear-driven propaganda has left me nauseous,,,not only in its rhetoric, but in its assumption that we are so naive. Our nuclear arsenal is OMINOUS...We only need to fear because it lies in the un-checked hands of our president. The Middle east SO wants her to be elected.... lets ask Rupert???? (Tom??)