Grandpa continued his little talk about labeling in regards to the sides taken in regards to the war.
"Once Congress has voted on a resolution giving the President authority to wage war against the enemy named in that resolution there is usually a time between the actual declaration and the time the President leads the troops into battle as directed. And with that time it brings up a question of law and constitutionality.
That question being; can Congress revoke that authority to wage war before the President actually begins to execute his given authority?
We know that Congress does not have the authority once the president has actually begun the execution of it. We also know that Congress has the authority to stop funding the war at any time thus forcing the President to give up the fight. But whether or not Congress can actually revoke the authority prior to the President’s execution I cannot say as a matter of fact. I see no reason why not but that would be speculation on my part.
The reason this distinquishment is important is because if my speculation is a fact then the other labels cannot be applied but being pro-war or anti-war still would be applicable for labeling the sides until the President actually executes the war. But one thing that can be known is that the other labels can be applicable one war has begun.
Once war has begun there can be only two outcomes, victory or defeat. There is no such thing as ties in war. The reason for this is the fact that there is no time limits placed on the length of wars. They are fought for as long as both sides are willing to fight in order to bring about victory and I emphasize the word victory here. I emphasize this word because to fight a war without intent of victory makes no sense. It is a waste of lives to fight a war with the intent of defeat. It is a waste of time and resources used to fight that war without the intent of victory.
Victory results when one side has given up the quest of victory. That is why I say that the loser determines the length of war and determines who the winner of that war is by surrendering. It is also why I say that to win a war is more costly than to lose a war, in both lives and money.
Thus, boy, once war has begun a person can either be an advocate of victory or an advocate of defeat for those who cannot call themselves pacifists. Each side will identify themselves by the arguments they use so it is not a matter of others labeling a person. It is the recognition of what a person is by his own arguments given.
One more thing, boy, be careful of the labels you use to identify a person. Labeling a person is not wrong, in and of itself but mislabeling that person is wrong. Label him in regards to the situation in question not to promote your own righteousness of position of the issue in question. To label a person inappropriately only exposes your own self-righteousness and arrogance. It also reveals your ignorance of the situation itself."
I just nodded slowly as grandpa finished but I was puzzled by his last words. Then I smiled for I knew that this would be another question to be answered another day.
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Pro-victory or Pro-war
"Grandpa, I’ve heard people who refer to themselves and refer to others using different terms in regards to the issue of the war in Iraq. Why is that?"
Grandpa just looked at me and with a twinkle in his eye replied by saying;
"The simple answer would be that people recognize the power of words and are very unwilling to portray themselves in a negative manner but do so to others as a means to justify their own position. And the war in Iraq is not the only issue of debate that this occurs. The issue of abortion is another area of debate where this occurs also."
I just smiled as I nodded my head in agreement as I waited for grandpa to continue.
"Boy, in regards to labeling there is another phenomenon that usually occurs also. One side will acknowledge and accept the label placed upon them by the opposition but the other side will not accept the label place upon them. And you will find that they become very emotional when tagged with the label given them.
Where war is the issue of debate there are three forms of labels thrown around very carelessly. They be the labels of pro-war and anti-war, pro-victory and anti-victory and last of all, the labels of pro-defeat and anti-defeat.
Being pro or anti war are positions that are taken where pacifism would be issue of discussion. A pacifist would be anti-war and anyone who was not a pacifist would be considered as pro-war. Here we are referring to wars in general and its use as a valid means to resolve issues that are at stake.
Another time where these labels would be valid would be in a debate of whether or not to declare war against another nation or enemy of some sort as labeled. Here we are referring to war in a particular situation as opposed to a general situation. It is here where labeling can be complicated.
A pacifist can claim the label of being anti-war regardless of the end results of that debate because of his stance based upon principle but those who are not pacifists cannot. This is especially true where the democratic process is used to be the determinant of whether or not war is declared or not.
The reason the democratic process is a factor is because of its purpose and intent. By definition, it is the recognition of the concept of majority rule with the consent and support of the minority. Thus, when a majority has been determined that majority speaks for the whole group, both the majority and minority. It is this that allows us to say we are united as one. When disunity is the result it can only be when the minority do not accept the concept of the democratic process but seeks to impose their viewpoint upon the majority.
Is what I am saying making sense to you so far, boy?"
I again just nodded silently awaiting to hear more.
Grandpa just looked at me and with a twinkle in his eye replied by saying;
"The simple answer would be that people recognize the power of words and are very unwilling to portray themselves in a negative manner but do so to others as a means to justify their own position. And the war in Iraq is not the only issue of debate that this occurs. The issue of abortion is another area of debate where this occurs also."
I just smiled as I nodded my head in agreement as I waited for grandpa to continue.
"Boy, in regards to labeling there is another phenomenon that usually occurs also. One side will acknowledge and accept the label placed upon them by the opposition but the other side will not accept the label place upon them. And you will find that they become very emotional when tagged with the label given them.
Where war is the issue of debate there are three forms of labels thrown around very carelessly. They be the labels of pro-war and anti-war, pro-victory and anti-victory and last of all, the labels of pro-defeat and anti-defeat.
Being pro or anti war are positions that are taken where pacifism would be issue of discussion. A pacifist would be anti-war and anyone who was not a pacifist would be considered as pro-war. Here we are referring to wars in general and its use as a valid means to resolve issues that are at stake.
Another time where these labels would be valid would be in a debate of whether or not to declare war against another nation or enemy of some sort as labeled. Here we are referring to war in a particular situation as opposed to a general situation. It is here where labeling can be complicated.
A pacifist can claim the label of being anti-war regardless of the end results of that debate because of his stance based upon principle but those who are not pacifists cannot. This is especially true where the democratic process is used to be the determinant of whether or not war is declared or not.
The reason the democratic process is a factor is because of its purpose and intent. By definition, it is the recognition of the concept of majority rule with the consent and support of the minority. Thus, when a majority has been determined that majority speaks for the whole group, both the majority and minority. It is this that allows us to say we are united as one. When disunity is the result it can only be when the minority do not accept the concept of the democratic process but seeks to impose their viewpoint upon the majority.
Is what I am saying making sense to you so far, boy?"
I again just nodded silently awaiting to hear more.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Should We have invaded Iraq?
"Grandpa, should we have invaded Iraq?"
"Boy, whether or not we should have invaded Iraq is a question only God can answer because only He knows what would have happened if we had not invaded Iraq and overthrew the Hussein government. We can only deal with the problems that resulted from the invasion and hope it turns out for the best for the world and for the Iraqi people.
We can speculate on every decision we make in life as to what would be if only… but it serves us only as a lesson for next time. The only thing your grandpa knows is that we did invade Iraq and overthrew the government. With that we brought the first war with Iraq to an end. And in bringing it to an end a new era in Iraqi history was about to begin.
We can only hope that it was a good decision and from what I have read it sounds as if the Iraqi people are willing to take the risks involved that comes with self-government. If so, then I believe it worth while and that our men and women who sacrificed their lives to give them this opportunity will not have given in vain.
Did we invade Iraq without justification? The answer to that is no. We invaded for the reasons given by Congress to declare justification, per the authority and power given to Congress by the Constitution. We are still in Iraq because the Iraqi government, who constitutes the voice of the Iraqi people, requested that we remain and help them against the insurgency forces. And we have the blessing of the Security Council of the United Nations, which has knowledge of this request.
What the Security Council did condemn though was the use of terrorist tactics by the insurgent forces against the people of Iraq in an attempt to overthrow the present government as elected by the people of Iraq. From this we can see that those who claim that we are there in some illegal manner are not correct. This only leaves them their own ideology as a source of their claims.
And for those who already knew this also knows that the Security Council will reexamine the situation at the end of this month. And if they hope that a determination will come out of that against the United States then they hope for the impossible. In fact, the only outside force that can influence the decision of our remaining in Iraq or leaving Iraq is the Iraqi government itself.
Answer your question, boy?"
I just nodded as I smiled and said, "yes, grandpa, thank you."
"Boy, whether or not we should have invaded Iraq is a question only God can answer because only He knows what would have happened if we had not invaded Iraq and overthrew the Hussein government. We can only deal with the problems that resulted from the invasion and hope it turns out for the best for the world and for the Iraqi people.
We can speculate on every decision we make in life as to what would be if only… but it serves us only as a lesson for next time. The only thing your grandpa knows is that we did invade Iraq and overthrew the government. With that we brought the first war with Iraq to an end. And in bringing it to an end a new era in Iraqi history was about to begin.
We can only hope that it was a good decision and from what I have read it sounds as if the Iraqi people are willing to take the risks involved that comes with self-government. If so, then I believe it worth while and that our men and women who sacrificed their lives to give them this opportunity will not have given in vain.
Did we invade Iraq without justification? The answer to that is no. We invaded for the reasons given by Congress to declare justification, per the authority and power given to Congress by the Constitution. We are still in Iraq because the Iraqi government, who constitutes the voice of the Iraqi people, requested that we remain and help them against the insurgency forces. And we have the blessing of the Security Council of the United Nations, which has knowledge of this request.
What the Security Council did condemn though was the use of terrorist tactics by the insurgent forces against the people of Iraq in an attempt to overthrow the present government as elected by the people of Iraq. From this we can see that those who claim that we are there in some illegal manner are not correct. This only leaves them their own ideology as a source of their claims.
And for those who already knew this also knows that the Security Council will reexamine the situation at the end of this month. And if they hope that a determination will come out of that against the United States then they hope for the impossible. In fact, the only outside force that can influence the decision of our remaining in Iraq or leaving Iraq is the Iraqi government itself.
Answer your question, boy?"
I just nodded as I smiled and said, "yes, grandpa, thank you."
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Grandpa feels so Shamed
Standing behind grandpa as he was debating an issue with another person in a blog he suddenly chuckled at what his opponent was saying and I asked; "What’s so funny, grandpa."
Grandpa just pushed his chair back and said; "You can learn a lot in a debate if you know what to look for, boy. And today I just got a college education from all I learned from this debate. Ahhhhh, the arrogance of my ignorance was so openly revealed" Then he went quiet and chuckled once more.
I learned today that we overthrew a government that was saving lives by preventing religious factions from killing each other. Here I thought we overthrew a government that was found guilty of committing crimes against the people of Iraq.
" I learned today that decisions made and recorded are not facts. What they are, I have no idea but they are not to be considered as a fact.
I learned today that even if we are victorious in the war against the insurgents in Iraq Geo. Bush would still be defeated by world opinion.
I learned today that if you cite a source for your argument it is your credibility that must be questioned before your source is acceptable. Here I thought you questioned the credibility of the source before an arguement was acceptable.
I learned today that if you praise a soldier for accomplishing his mission, that is stroking his ego. Here I thought it was giving him a compliment.
I learned today that the definition of an insurgency does not tell me the intent of the insurgent and that I have no idea of his intent. Here I thought he was defined as an insurgent because it declared his intent.
I learned today that the word lost depicts the end result of a future conclusion of a war not the end result of the conclusion of a past war as I was taught.
I learned today that refusing to continue a debate instead of answering an unsubstantiated allegation about myself is being cowardly."
Then grandpa just looked at me with twinkling eyes and then leaned forward, placed his head in his hands and mockingly whispered "Ohhh the shame I feel. How will I ever live this down"
I just chuckled.
Grandpa just pushed his chair back and said; "You can learn a lot in a debate if you know what to look for, boy. And today I just got a college education from all I learned from this debate. Ahhhhh, the arrogance of my ignorance was so openly revealed" Then he went quiet and chuckled once more.
I learned today that we overthrew a government that was saving lives by preventing religious factions from killing each other. Here I thought we overthrew a government that was found guilty of committing crimes against the people of Iraq.
" I learned today that decisions made and recorded are not facts. What they are, I have no idea but they are not to be considered as a fact.
I learned today that even if we are victorious in the war against the insurgents in Iraq Geo. Bush would still be defeated by world opinion.
I learned today that if you cite a source for your argument it is your credibility that must be questioned before your source is acceptable. Here I thought you questioned the credibility of the source before an arguement was acceptable.
I learned today that if you praise a soldier for accomplishing his mission, that is stroking his ego. Here I thought it was giving him a compliment.
I learned today that the definition of an insurgency does not tell me the intent of the insurgent and that I have no idea of his intent. Here I thought he was defined as an insurgent because it declared his intent.
I learned today that the word lost depicts the end result of a future conclusion of a war not the end result of the conclusion of a past war as I was taught.
I learned today that refusing to continue a debate instead of answering an unsubstantiated allegation about myself is being cowardly."
Then grandpa just looked at me with twinkling eyes and then leaned forward, placed his head in his hands and mockingly whispered "Ohhh the shame I feel. How will I ever live this down"
I just chuckled.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Socialism
Grandpa, you said that there were other reasons you were opposed to socialism, what are they?
Grandpa startled me when he softly said "The thirteenth amendment of the Constitution prevents me from endorsing socialism, boy."
Grandpa just chuckled a bit as he saw the look on my face then after that he said;
" Boy, at one time the South had what is referred to as a slave economy. A Master would buy a slave based upon his ability to produce and in return provide that slave with his needs in life.
But there was one problem. Those abilities of the slave were determined by the needs of his Master without consideration to the potential of the slave. And when the slave did not meet the expectations of his Master then he was punished.
As for the needs provided the slave the Master determined those also. The Master determined what the slave would be allowed in regards to food and he’d also determined when he would be able to receive that food. This was true in regards to clothing as well as shelter. The Master determined what clothes as well as what kind of shelter that slave would receive to meet his needs. Medical treatment was also given not so much as the slave thought or needed but as the Master determined. And when you consider that the Master put his own needs above the needs of the slave you can imagine what the slave ate, wore, what kind of shelter and the quality of medical care was provided the slave.
Now, what does this have to do with socialism? The answer is simple. Substitute the word government for the word Master and substitute the word people for the word slave in the above paragraph and you have the formula for socialism.
We can see the truth in this by just examining the policies of government now. Every person who relies on welfare payments or on social security payments to provide for their needs are among those that the government, itself, has determined to be among those living in poverty.
And what is really funny is that those who are advocates of a socialistic economy cite these people who are in these socialistic programs as the reason for even more socialistic programs. Does that make sense to you, boy?"
I just slowly shook my head in silence.
Grandpa finished by saying;
" It doesn't make sense to me either. The only way that you will convince the people to accept this form of economy is first to convince them that they are the victims of an unjust economic system. And to do that they must use an old military tactic, divide and conquer, by pitting the poor against the rich and appearing to be the champions of the poor. The amazing thing is that it is done right out in the open and still there are those who fall for it. "
Grandpa startled me when he softly said "The thirteenth amendment of the Constitution prevents me from endorsing socialism, boy."
Grandpa just chuckled a bit as he saw the look on my face then after that he said;
" Boy, at one time the South had what is referred to as a slave economy. A Master would buy a slave based upon his ability to produce and in return provide that slave with his needs in life.
But there was one problem. Those abilities of the slave were determined by the needs of his Master without consideration to the potential of the slave. And when the slave did not meet the expectations of his Master then he was punished.
As for the needs provided the slave the Master determined those also. The Master determined what the slave would be allowed in regards to food and he’d also determined when he would be able to receive that food. This was true in regards to clothing as well as shelter. The Master determined what clothes as well as what kind of shelter that slave would receive to meet his needs. Medical treatment was also given not so much as the slave thought or needed but as the Master determined. And when you consider that the Master put his own needs above the needs of the slave you can imagine what the slave ate, wore, what kind of shelter and the quality of medical care was provided the slave.
Now, what does this have to do with socialism? The answer is simple. Substitute the word government for the word Master and substitute the word people for the word slave in the above paragraph and you have the formula for socialism.
We can see the truth in this by just examining the policies of government now. Every person who relies on welfare payments or on social security payments to provide for their needs are among those that the government, itself, has determined to be among those living in poverty.
And what is really funny is that those who are advocates of a socialistic economy cite these people who are in these socialistic programs as the reason for even more socialistic programs. Does that make sense to you, boy?"
I just slowly shook my head in silence.
Grandpa finished by saying;
" It doesn't make sense to me either. The only way that you will convince the people to accept this form of economy is first to convince them that they are the victims of an unjust economic system. And to do that they must use an old military tactic, divide and conquer, by pitting the poor against the rich and appearing to be the champions of the poor. The amazing thing is that it is done right out in the open and still there are those who fall for it. "
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Socialism vs Free Enterprise
"Grandpa, why are you so opposed to Socialism?"
Grandpa just grinned as he responded, " Because, boy, I have more confidence in myself than I do in the government when it comes to providing for my family. That is the simple answer. "
With this said he paused to allow that to sink in my thick head. Then he spoke again and here was what he said;
"Free Enterprise is an economic system of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a system where people make the decisions for their lives. It is a system where people must accept responsibility for their own decisions. And in doing so a person reaps the rewards of their own good decisions but also they must accept the consequences of any bad decisions.
Socialism is an economic system of the government, by the government and for the government. It is a system imposed upon a society by government dictates. It is a system with the intent and purpose of spreading responsibility upon society as a whole with the few making decisions for the whole. It is a system where the few get credit for good decisions but the whole must accept the consequences of the bad decisions.
The difference between free enterprise and socialism are many but there is one significant difference. Free enterprise is an economic system that evolves naturally in a society. It is an 'you have something I want and I have something you want, let’s trade' system. And each party equally profits from that trade.
Socialism is a government imposed form of economic system. It is a government takes and government gives as it sees ability and need. Affordability is the foundation of this form of economic system. Since affordability is the determinant it imposes a forced inequality upon a society.
Free enterprise feeds the competitive spirit of man. In order to survive it only needs to recognize the opportunities of life and an attitude of 'can do'. It emphasizes the individual’s role in society. And the appitite of the spirit is never sated
Socialism feeds upon the lack of security that man feels. In order to be imposed it must create a perception of the lack of opportunities and a 'can’t do' attitude. Socialism relies on persuading certain groups that they are the exploited of another group. Socialism advocates victimization.
Now, boy, don't get me wrong. your grandfather thinks that Karl Marx was unique in his thinking and I admire him for it. His ideas has been taken on by many students of society as well as many students of politics as all ideas will that appear to solve the problems of any society. but that is as far as I'll go with my admiration and respect for the man. His ideas may have pointed out flaws but his solutions are the least perfect of any other form of economics. They deprive the spirit of men of the food it needs so that men may live as men should. And when the spirit dies so does the man."
Grandpa just grinned as he responded, " Because, boy, I have more confidence in myself than I do in the government when it comes to providing for my family. That is the simple answer. "
With this said he paused to allow that to sink in my thick head. Then he spoke again and here was what he said;
"Free Enterprise is an economic system of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a system where people make the decisions for their lives. It is a system where people must accept responsibility for their own decisions. And in doing so a person reaps the rewards of their own good decisions but also they must accept the consequences of any bad decisions.
Socialism is an economic system of the government, by the government and for the government. It is a system imposed upon a society by government dictates. It is a system with the intent and purpose of spreading responsibility upon society as a whole with the few making decisions for the whole. It is a system where the few get credit for good decisions but the whole must accept the consequences of the bad decisions.
The difference between free enterprise and socialism are many but there is one significant difference. Free enterprise is an economic system that evolves naturally in a society. It is an 'you have something I want and I have something you want, let’s trade' system. And each party equally profits from that trade.
Socialism is a government imposed form of economic system. It is a government takes and government gives as it sees ability and need. Affordability is the foundation of this form of economic system. Since affordability is the determinant it imposes a forced inequality upon a society.
Free enterprise feeds the competitive spirit of man. In order to survive it only needs to recognize the opportunities of life and an attitude of 'can do'. It emphasizes the individual’s role in society. And the appitite of the spirit is never sated
Socialism feeds upon the lack of security that man feels. In order to be imposed it must create a perception of the lack of opportunities and a 'can’t do' attitude. Socialism relies on persuading certain groups that they are the exploited of another group. Socialism advocates victimization.
Now, boy, don't get me wrong. your grandfather thinks that Karl Marx was unique in his thinking and I admire him for it. His ideas has been taken on by many students of society as well as many students of politics as all ideas will that appear to solve the problems of any society. but that is as far as I'll go with my admiration and respect for the man. His ideas may have pointed out flaws but his solutions are the least perfect of any other form of economics. They deprive the spirit of men of the food it needs so that men may live as men should. And when the spirit dies so does the man."
Saturday, December 01, 2007
A Soldier given Comfort
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS?
HERE THIS IS?
READ AND LEARN ABOUT
WHAT A SOLDIER IS
This statue currently stands outside the Iraqi palace, Now home to the 4th Infantry division.
It will eventually be shipped home
And put in the memorial museum in Fort Hood , TX
The statue was created by an Iraqi artist named Kalat, who for years was forced by Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam that dotted Baghdad ..
Kalat was so grateful for the Americans liberation of his country; He melted 3 of the heads of the fallen Saddam and made the statue as a memorial to the American soldiers and their fallen warriors.
Kalat worked on this memorial night and day for several months.
To the left of the kneeling soldier is a small Iraqi girl giving the soldier comfort as he mourns the loss of his comrade in arms.
This was sent to me in an email by a very dear friend and I just had to share it with you.
UPDATE:
I have had a couple of persons point out to me that the post was misleading in the thoughts as depicted. So for those who would like to read the real story of this memorial here is the link;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
