Monday, September 04, 2006

My Comments to DKL on BCC about Rumsfeld

I want to save them in case they were too harsh and someone on BCC takes them down:


President Kimball was talking about ALL the people of the earth, not just Americans. Many General Authorities, as well as BYU professors, have served in all branches of the U.S. Military and honor others who do.

I know this. I have no problem with people who serve to protect my country. My sister is actually in Iraq as I type this. There is a difference between serving in a military to protect one's country, and, as Kimball said, relying on the gods of steel for protection from enemies. Moreover, I think we've gone even worse; we're not looking from protection from our gods of steel, but we're looking for our gods of steel to crush our enemies. This seems rather un-Christian to me.

I’m not going to defend President Bush’s war in Iraq. I’m glad I didn’t have to make that decision. However, I think you need some education in Middle East history. The Bath Party of Sadaam Hussein was modeled on the Nazi Party of Adolph Hitler. There were very close ties between Nazi Germany and Iraq. France and Germany would not do much, if anything at all, to support the invasion of Iraq, not because it was morally or ethically wrong, but because they are anti-semitic and seriously dependent on Middle East oil. Would you really want the U.S. in the same condition Europe is today–with serious problems with the Muslims and dependent on them for oil?

Interesting that you say this. First off, I am quite familiar with my Middle East history. I know much about the Baath culture and politics. I find it interesting though, that if you do really believe in your statement, that the Baath party is quite similar to that of the Nazi party, then why was Reagan and Rumsfeld doing business with Saddam in the 1980s? The real irony of Rumsfeld's speech last week was that it is he who fits the role of Chamberlain best out of anyone here today. It was he who worked with Saddam in the 1980s, who supported Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in 1983, and the use of chemical weapons on the Iranians in the war that Saddam started. More ironic is that just like Hitler, it was Saddam who started the conflict against Iran, trying to, just like Hitler, spread his strength past his borders. So, if Saddam was truly like Hitler, what was Rumsfeld doing shaking Saddam's hand? Furthermore, if you truly believe in fighting against all those who have at one point appeased "evildoers", why do you support Rumsfeld? Or is it okay on occasion to lend support to Nazi-type regimes? Is that the message Rumsfeld is giving?

Rumsfeld is an evil man, and by default, since he thinks Rumsfeld is right for the job, so is Bush, his boss. If Bush thinks Rumsfeld, who appeased Saddam, is the right man to fight terror, then this shows just how bad Bush is as a "fighter against terror." Doesn't it? Who does he trust as the front man against terror? A man who appeased terrorists. Let us also not forget that it was Reagan who cut and ran when Hezbollah killed 241 marines in their sleep. Talk about appeasing terrorists! What better message to send them then this: if you kill 241 of our best trained men, we're going to go away. This is the worst thing ever. Worse than anything Clinton ever did.

Do you really believe Islam is a peaceful religion? Many Muslims are, but their leaders are not; and the people are bullied by threats to harm them and their families if they don’t cooperate.

Yes, I believe Islam is a peaceful religion, just like all religions. You say many generalities in this that if turned on Christianity would be pretty accurate, yet that would offend you. Why do you say offensive things when you don't want to be offended yourself? Yes, Islam is a peaceful religion when practiced as it should, just like Christianity is. But in practice, Christianity has been just as, if not more so, violent. How many wars have Christians fought in the name of religion? Frankly, from what I keep hearing out of Christian conservatives, this war fought now is a religious war. I mean just look at how you framed this "war on terror." You don't talk about the tool---terrorism----but rather the religion, as if the religion is driving the tool. In other words, in your eyes, this is a war of religions, not anything else.

The religion does not change the fact that both have leaders who seem to advocate some kind of violence upon others. Christians show quotes out of context of Mohammed saying, "kill all infidels," while Muslims counter with quotes out of context of the LORD calling for the extermination of all living things in Caanan.

This is the folly of trying to frame this "war" into the paradigm of religion.

The Taliban is as evil as the Nazis, if not more so, and potentially much more dangerous, even to their own people. How would you like to live under the Taliban? I suggest you go try it, and take your sister, wife, mother, and any other female that thinks like you, with you and see how much they thank you for it. Taliban rule in Afghanistan is exactly what they plan should they conquer Europe, which they are doing, and America, which people like you would allow due to your cowardness and gullibility.

Potentially more dangerous than the Nazis? Dude, check your facts. When Hitler started his fighting, just how powerful was his military? It was the most powerful military on the planet. According to the facts, America's army size at the time was about the same as Finland's. Germany was the most powerful nation on the planet in 1938. The Taliban couldn't even run their own backward, war-torn, hellhole. And you say they are potentially worse and more dangerous than the Nazis? You're undermining your intellect, DKL. You're smarter than this. Stop with the false talking points, and look at the facts.

Furthermore, you say the Taliban are conquering Europe? What? And they are doing this because of my "cowardness and gullibility?" What? I supported the war in Afghanistan, so oops, there goes your insult. I supported the destruction of the Taliban the moment they destroyed the Buddhist statues back in 1999. I hoped Clinton would have used that as a good enough excuse to remove those fools out of power in Afghanistan. And now you tell me my "cowardness" is somehow making the Taliban "win" in Europe and America? I guess you really are not as smart as I thought you were. Your partisanship has clouded your intellect, DKL. Look at the world outside of your defense of Republicans. You'll see a much clearer picture, and you'll see the folly of the Republican strategy.

Do you really think the LDS Church and the Democrats, which are being taken over by the loony left and Hollywierdos, have much in common? The left wing, whom you seem to admire, stands for homosexuality, free sex, abortion, socialism, and anti-religion, etc. Where does that fit in with LDS doctrine. Is this your idea of “godliness”.

Yes, they do have much in common. They also have other things that are not in common, as is similar with Republicans. I don't admire the "loony left," but thanks for attempting to set up a straw man, a typical Republican strategy. That is not who I am.

Are you really so ignorant as to not understand that Hussein was paying big money to families to use their children as suicide bombers?

I knew this. I also know that the United States and Great Britain support a dictatorship in Uzbekistan. Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, has written an op-ed in the Washington Post, detailing just how we support torture and murder in Uzbekistan, even giving them money to do so. Bad people do bad things and get support from bad people. It is how this world works.

Do you not understand that the full intent of Iran and Syria now, and also Iraq in the past, is to nuke Israel?

I always knew this. In fact, I wonder why Bush supporters didn't realize that by removing Saddam from power only strengthened Iran's position. A report by the Chatam House of England shows that our actions in Iraq gave Iran control of Iraq, and further clout and strength in the Middle East. I quote a portion:

"There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the War on Terror in the Middle East," says the report from Chatham House's Middle East Programme.

"The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran’s regional rival governments - the Taleban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in April 2003 - but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures."

In other words, our actions in Iraq brought about the very thing we were supposedly trying to avoid: a stronger Iran. Can you see why I've been against the war in Iraq from the get go? I knew right from the start what would happen, but no one listened, because they were too driven by fear.

Is your education so sparse that you do not understand that the Muslims were the first to invade Europe over 300 years before the first Crusade?

I knew this. What is your point? I can show that in fact, Christians invaded many countries even before Mohammed was even conceived!

Do you not realize that Istanbul, Turkey was once Constantinople, and on the European continent, and that Muslims attacked it over a period of centuries. They have no business there; they invaded and took over, and that’s what they want to do in Europe and America today. your logic, what did Christians have to do in Russia? Why did they invade and forcibly convert pagan Russians to Christianity?

Yes, there are things that do go wrong in war, but if there were no war you would not have the right to be so anti-American, which you most definitely are.

I challenge you here and now to show me where I have said anything that is anti-American! I'm tired of this libel. It is such a weak assault that conservatives have against those who rightfully and strongly question the policies of our leaders. Call them names. Is that the best you have? prove me wrong, show me facts, but the moment you call me names, you've lost your case, and show nothing but your immaturity.

Would you rather fight the terrorists on our soil? They are pouring over the border, along with drugs, weapons, and diesease. Is that what you want? Should we stop the war on terror and try to negotiate with them?

Woah, several things here. Yes, I would rather fight terrorists on my soil. First off, I know my territory better; it is to my advantage. Taking the fight to them has proven the folly of offensive war. The Taliban are still around five years after we started going after them. Iraq is in shambles and a horrific mess. Moreover, their anger is only fueled and enflamed by our presence in their lands. I say, fine, you stay where you are, and I'll stay here. You come here and I will end your life. I have no problem with that. Furthermore, it gives me the chance to trust in the Lord for my protection, not the gods of steel. I know the Lord will protect me if I look to him, of this I have no question.

Secondly, it seems you are equating Mexicans coming over the border with Islamic terrorists. Get off the Michelle Malkin buzz, dude. She is a fool. She does not know what she is talking about. Leave her vitriol to what it is, a pig pen.

No, don't negotiate with them. But let them be in their own lands. Let them destroy themselves. It is what they want. What better way to give them the freedom you want to give them than to let them kill themselves, as they seem to want to do.

This is the libertarian streak in me.

You curse President Bush, but if Bill Clinton hadn’t been such a coward and a glory-hound we may not have had 911. The government knew throughout Klinton’s administration that there were terrorists living in America, and in the U.S. Military. Ali Mohammed was one; that person was responsible for the first bombing in New York. Bill Clinton ignored that bombing and didn’t even personally investigate it, or go to see what happened, as Pres. Bush did. Then Mr. Clinton sends the U.S. military, which, like you he abhors, to Bosnia and Somalia and lets those Rangers die in Somalia because he wouldn’t support what he started. Men who volunteer to do your dirty work for you while you cower behind your philosophies died because of a President that just wanted to be popular, and some of you people just “swallow the party line”, and want nothing to do with responsibility.

I think my comments above about Rumsfeld and Reagan best answer this diatribe.

Don’t use President Kimball as a spokesman for your left-wing propaganda; you are twisting what he said, and probably with full intent to deceive.

My intent is to discover the truth. If you don't like the fact that Kimball's words sear your soul, that's not my problem. Take that up with him.


At 9/05/2006 12:36:00 AM, Blogger Amira said...

Excellent post, although I'm not quite as keen about Craig Murray. Actually, there's hardly any expert on Central Asia that I much like, from Fred Starr to Craig Murray. Still, Craig Murray does something to keep Uzbekistan in the news and he's a lot more interesting than Fred Starr or Martha Brill Olcott.

In the end though, both Bush #1 and Clinton missed a huge opportunity in Afghanistan in the early 90s. Afghanistan was waiting for the West to help rebuild and recreate their country, but instead it was left to Pakistan's political intrigues. The need for a war on terror could have been averted at that point, or at a variety of other points in history.

US foreign policy has rarely been stellar under any president. We serve our interests, and that is all- even when those interests are incredibly short-sighted.

In a way though, I am glad the rest of the world has figured that out.

At 9/05/2006 08:51:00 AM, Blogger Sherpa said...

What's more important to you Dan, living your life as a faithful Latter Day Saint who has seared their soul with the name of Christ or politics?

The core of the gospel is how we treat each other and that translates to the politics boards.

Love your Enemies isn't just an abstract thought.

reductio ad hitlerum? reductio ad association to prove your point? You're smarter than that.

Its not a matter of being harsh, its the fact that your using logical fallacies to prove your point. If your point is concrete, than why use poor debating tricks?

At 9/05/2006 10:26:00 AM, Blogger nicolaepadigone said...


Thank you for your comments. I am not as familiar these days with the goings on in Central Asia as I was in the 90s, but Mr. Murray's article seems pretty searing on America's policies in Uzbekistan. I recall the atrocity last year where hundreds of protesters were murdered and the US played it down. Oh the irony!

I wonder just when we're going to find that this dog we are feeding now will turn around and bite our hand. I wonder just how far in the future that will be.

At 9/05/2006 10:40:00 AM, Blogger nicolaepadigone said...


I want to see your examples of when you called out Republicans in the multitude of times they've used reductio ad Hitlerium. Specifically when Rumsfeld used it just last week, and Bush, and Rove, and Cheney, etc. Show me your examples. If not, then why do you only raise this up when a Democrat uses it, and uses it quite well.

See, when Republicans use it, they use it with another fallacy, the straw man. They create this caricature of a person who does not exist who is also a Hitler appeaser, yet those who believe strongly on supposed debate logic, never seem to be present to call them on it when they use it. I wonder why.

Ruby, you keep calling me out on how I supposedly "treat" others, yet I saw no comment on your BCC post towards Ross (to whom I responded), about him calling me cowardly and gullible, not only anti-American and other things. Is he acting Christ-like? Then why single me out?

You say "love your enemies," but I have not seen you say that towards Republicans about their Democratic opponents when they use libel and sadistic labels.

Moreover, pointing out that Rumsfeld met Saddam is not a logical fallacy. It proves the duplicitous nature of men like Rumsfeld, who with their right hand rattle their sabres at enemies, and with their left shake their hands. Bush's connections to Uzbekistan proves this point, and it is no fallacy. Why does Bush (and Rumsfeld, as it is a military base we have in Uzbekistan), get cozy with the Uzbekh dictator and deride the Syrian dictator? Pointing out these things proves their duplicitous evil natures. The issue of Saddam and Hitler comes from Ross's example. If, as Ross said, the Baath regime was based on Hitler's Nazi party, then why did Reagan back Hitler in the 1980s? Is that not duplicitous? And is pointing that out a fallacy? Moreover, Rumsfeld visiting and shaking Saddam's hand is very much like Chamberlain trying to assist (let's not use the word appease, as it apparently is overused these days) Hitler. Any reductio ad Hitlerium in that is a false use of the logical fallacy, because most of the time, if not all the time, the use of a logical fallacy, such as reductio ad Hitlerium, comes with the use of another logical fallacy: the straw man. I am not portraying Rumsfeld in any other way except what he really is. He really did go and meet with Saddam as Saddam was gassing Kurds and Iranians, the same incidents for which Saddam now faces war crimes. Republicans use the straw man reductio ad Hitlerium where no real thing exists. No Democrat they try to label as such has met with Saddam. No Democrat they try to label as such has attempted to appease any terrorist, except in the eyes of Republicans, which proves their logical fallacy.

There are actual occasions when comparing someone today to someone in the past is pretty accurate, especially when their own actions prove it.

Rumsfeld met with and condoned what Saddam did in the 1980s. Reagan left Lebanon after Hezbollah murdered 241 Marines in their sleep. These are facts. Take them as you want, but I am not using reductio ad Hitlerium, and am standing firm in my beliefs.

At 9/05/2006 12:19:00 PM, Blogger Sherpa said...

Daniel, maybe you'll actually listen one day to what I'm saying and not excuse your actions or pat yourself on the back.

Maybe one day you won't flip around and attack someone else when they are trying to give you some criticism.

You're pulling some ad hominem on me but that's okay, I know you're smarter than using reductio ad hitlerum or ad hominem.

Contention isn't cool Dan. Anger isn't cool either.

At 9/05/2006 12:22:00 PM, Blogger Sherpa said...

Oh and Dan..........

Start acting like the moderate you claim to be.

At 9/05/2006 12:40:00 PM, Blogger Sherpa said...

Daniel, I don't know how many times I defended you on the boards. Douglas once called me your "f%$^" buddy and told me and accused me of having sex with you because I defended you.

I defended you behind the scenes, I defended you in private conversations, I defended you on friends boards, I defended you in coversations with other moderators.

I did the same with other Democrats time and time again. I've gotten after people in private conversation, in e-mails, on the boards, in public conversation all the time for using polemics against the Democratic party.

I don't know how many times I've personally got after friends for using polemics against Democrats and using liberals and other political words as slurs.

I thought we were friends, I knew when you didn't defend me against Carlos last year that you held politics higher than friendships. Now I know this for certain. seriously. I was called your "f%$^" buddy and this is how you treat me? Daniel, I'd do it again for your wife, but seriously you need to get your emotions in check. I kept a lot of it from you because it wasn't necessary, I was just doing my job, but this is how you repay me? This is how you treat someone who you thought was your friend? I went to war for you time and time again until it was too late. This is how you repay me?

Christ talked time and time again how we should treat our fellow men, and I'm not perfect, but I try. Its partly why Im a moderate. The name calling on both sides makes me sick--and not necessary to further a public debate. The polemics practiced by both sides is the canker thats eating our country's integrity.

At 9/05/2006 04:05:00 PM, Blogger nicolaepadigone said...


I don't know what to say. I am terribly sorry that Douglas said those things to you. That's pretty horrible of him.

The question of politics today is where does one stand. As a moderate, when you see such horrible actions taken in your country's name, can you associate yourself with those leaders and with those who support those leaders? Where do you take your moral stand? I sometimes rue the day I chose to study politics at BYU. Had I know how hateful America would get politically, I would have gone into basketweaving instead.

So where does this leave me in relation to my friends who differ with me politically? I respect anyone who is respectful to me, i.e. doesn't call me anti-American, etc. I'll debate with them the finer points, including laying out criticism of leaders of our nation. When I am called a coward, gullible and anti-American, I tend to be bothered, I ain't perfect. Then when a friend comes in and criticizes me for my response, I tend to get defensive, Ruby. Especially since you didn't mention that any of my remarks had anything positive to them. What's the point of constructive criticism if there is no positive reinforcement? All this kind of criticism does is bring up the wall. Especially because I've heard all this before.

I apologize though for questioning your integrity. Indeed you have told Republicans to halt their dirty tactics, and done much behind the scenes. For a lapse in judgment in forgetting that, I apologize.

At 9/05/2006 04:27:00 PM, Blogger Sherpa said...

Daniel, you overstepped that line today. I really did question our friendship, because to me a friend is one that watches ones back. I took a whole lot of crap from Douglas and others on the boards because I felt they were very unfair to you.

Daniel, if someone calls me a coward or anti-american, I don't have to call them one back. I know that I'm not a coward and I don't have to stoop to their behavior to prove anything.Sometimes I lose my temper
and I apologize for that. However, once someone starts personally insulting me, I know I have a choice. I can insult them back, or I can do what I can to pull the conversation back to civil conversation. If someone slugs me in day to day life or on the soccer field, that isn't an automatic free card to slug back. I'll get penalized just as much if I slug back.

Dan, your style of writing about politics is a bit offputting sometimes. I'm saying this as a moderate, one who has voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my 11 years as a registered voter. I admonished you a bit by saying that you are smarter than that. Seriously, you are smart. You're better than polemics and logical fallacies. I know that you can do better, that's why I bother. ;)

Daniel, I studied politics because it fascinated me. It still does. I still believe in the ideals this country was founded on. As a moderate I see the horrible things our leaders do, but I won't stoop to their level. If someone is trashing either party, I'll speak up and say hey, don't do that there's a better way. If a friend says they are hardcore liberal or conservative, I'll tease them. If a friend says they are a moderate, I'll tease them. I try very hard not to let my political beliefs stand in the way of how I treat my fellow men.

There's a reason some of my favorite novels are pulitzer prize winning books which expound on the american process of politics, there's a reason I own a few seasons of West Wing on DVD. I still believe that the idealism that our country stands on is not dead. However, I know if I treat each side with respect and not spew polemics, then i've done my little part to try and elevate the national discourse. We need more people who think before they speak, and who refrain from polemics and insults (great conference talk btw).

At 9/05/2006 04:49:00 PM, Blogger nicolaepadigone said...

I took a whole lot of crap from Douglas and others on the boards because I felt they were very unfair to you.

They were extremely unfair, and Jed didn't seem to realize just how bad they were, the reason I left. I got tired of both them and his ineffectual policies.

Eh, it looks like I might not get to post on BCC. I replied to your last comment, but it has yet to appear. Oh well.

There are getting to be few places that are not tainted by Bush's poisonous ideology.

I can only hope enough Americans are not fearful and realize that change needs to come in Washington, or America will really turn evil.

At 9/05/2006 05:20:00 PM, Blogger Sherpa said...


actually Jed kept you on the boards as long as he could. Neither you or Douglas and his cohorts were blameless. Neither side was a victim.

Jed was more than fair to you from what I saw. He was very, very patient. I talked to him on several occasions, and trust me he gave you every chance that you needed. It wasn't a matter of being tainted by Bush's poisonous idealogy, that wasn't it at all.

However, that's past. Hopefully y'all have learned from your mistakes and have moved on.


Post a Comment

<< Home