Hello All: I haven't posted in quite some time, but do stop by and lurk from time to time. Maybe some here still remember me. Anyway, I thought I'd relate a recent episode with my wife. A little background info. I'm a non-JW married to an active and zealous JW. Recently, my wife switched doctors and went in for a physical. She related to me the following: The doctor began by telling her of his approach to treating patients. He tried to view his patients in a holistic manner -- as physical, psychological and spiritual beings -- and tried to treat them with these things in mind. He wanted her to not only let him know of her physical ailments, but to also relate how things were psychological/emotionally as well as spiritually. She didn't tell me exactly how much or what she related to the doctor, but he ordered some lab work -- blood, urine, etc. -- before proceeding with the physical. During the consultation, he made some suggestions regarding diet and exercise, and gave her the name of a book he thought would be helpful -- a book written by a Catholic priest of all things! She was absolutely incensed that he had made such a suggestion, although I don't think she related this to the doctor. However, she sure let me know. Now, I don't know exactly who the author was, nor exactly what the book talked about. It may have had nothing to do with Catholicism for all I know. I don't think my wife knows either. She threw the name of the book and the author away before arriving home. The author being Catholic was enough to dismiss it without a thought. She already had a religion, thank you very much She didn't need any advice or help from anyone else. She then went on denigrating Catholic priests and nuns. Priests are homosexuals and child molesters. Nuns are lesbians. She even heard of a nun who had an IUD! -- this despite their vows of celibacy. I then asked her why she was so upset with someone suggesting some spiritual reading material. Wasn?t that what she spent so much time preparing for and doing? Wasn?t that one of the primary activities of her religion? She replied that she hardly ever had a chance to speak to anyone (a nice dodge that avoids the question). Most people just say they?re not interested. I replied that she could of just done the same -- say thank you, but I?m not interested. I didn?t think she should be so upset (rather hypocritical, although I didn?t say so). She didn?t see my point and was upset I didn?t see things from her perspective. Toodles, CPiolo
CPiolo
JoinedPosts by CPiolo
-
24
Hypocrisy of the First Order by JWs
by AlanF injehovah's witnesses are known for their hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how they treat others and how they want to be treated by others.
as to why heinze and paul were kicked off.. .
in the best interest of the club to remove paul and heinz from our .
-
-
-
30
Calling all Los Angeles folks
by animal inas some of you know, i commute from phoenix, az to los angeles for my job.
it will last thru january.. several of us have been unsuccessful in getting together thus far, but came up with a plan during a weekend i am there.
i will be staying over thru the weekend of january 4th, in the hotel in el segundo, http://www.embassysuites.com/en/es/hotels/index.jhtml?ctyhocn=laxeses .. the hotel has a happy hour from 530pm to 730pm, guests are included.
-
-
CPiolo
Animal,
I don't post much any more, but if I'm welcome, I will try to make it up.
Farkel,
I didn't know you'd left beautiful SD. Where did you move to, if you don't mind sharing? I lived in SD for almost 10 years and still miss it also. I visit as often as possible. It's amazing the changes taking place. The downtown skyline is filling with high-rise condominiums. It was only a matter of time before the secret of SD was discovered.
CPiolo
-
5
JW CALLS DR. LAURA
by TR intoday while listening to the dr. laura show, a single woman with a young daughter called in concerned about wether or not she should join a religion that she disagrees with on some points.
dr. laura explained that even she has some bones of contention with her jewish faith, but to join a religion that you have major problems with, especially if you are raising a child in that religion, would be a mistake.
dr. laura explained how sometimes she has discussions with the rabbis to get more clarity, or to just say what she thinks about a certain practice.. the woman who called explained that when she has a question and goes to the elders, they just tell her to read some publications they have on the matter, and that she could be disfellowshipped if she believes differently.. dr. laura reiterated that it would be a mistake to join a religion that she is uncomfortable with.. the woman never said she was interested in 'hovahs, but it's rather obvious.
-
-
CPiolo
Dr. Laura's mother was just discovered dead, two months dead, just minutes from the studio in which she records her show.
Is She Dr. Laura or Dr. Strange Love?
http://www.robertscheer.com/CPiolo
-
83
Who Pays The Ferryman....?
by hillary_step infrench philosopher blaise pascal once noted, "men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
" a case study for this statement can clearly be evidenced by the governing body of jehovahs witnesses.. the gb present themselves as lovers of truth and righteousness who are the only persons on this planet who speak for god.
this doctrine is at the very core of the beliefs of jehovahs witnesses and is one of the few that cannot be rationalized away by wts apologists.
-
-
CPiolo
bttt
-
-
-
CPiolo
O.K. Crazy151drinker Ill bite.
All of those here who live in the U.S. and do not like it are free to travel to China or any other country of their choice. LEAVE. No one will block you from leaving. No guards will try to shoot you when you cross the border. LEAVE. There are millions if not BILLIONS of people who would love to take your place because they know FIRSTHAND what a fucked up country is. LEAVE.
Your response is typical anyone who criticizes their own country or government should just up and leave. How would you suggest one go about improving things without criticism? How does one avoid repeating past mistakes if one forgets or ignores those made in the past? How does one enjoy the freedom to express ones opinion if that opinion must always be in accord with ones government?
I pointed out that while we have many problems and havent always demonstrated much morality in our foreign affairs, we have a great country. I also pointed out that many whove been subjected to some of our immoral acts and policies would still jump at the opportunity to live in the US. If those who disagreed with a governments policies just shut up or left, there would be no US of A, wed still be an obedient British colony toeing the line and behaving like good little subjects.
I find it amusing that there are no listings of attrocities committed by other countries.
I dont believe anyone doubts that other countries have committed atrocities. But the subject of this thread is the US, not other countries. Moreover, when one goes about regime changing or invading other countries because of their moral deficiencies, it leaves one open to criticism on the same grounds. Its one way to point out the hypocrisy occurring.
Well we have the modern classics of Hitler, Stalin, Japan, the current government of North Korea, China (forced abortions anyone???), and Pol Pot. We might as well include the majority of African Nations
How about the Classics? We have the millions upon millions of chinese who died building the great wall. Spain's destruction of the central and southern native Americans. The slaves of Egypt. The Norse conquests. Roman conquests....it goes on and on and on and on......... .
I see, two or more wrongs make a right. Again, the US was the focus of this thread.
You should also read some history.
Pol Pot came into power after we had bombed Cambodia. We helped create the situation in which Pol Pot was able to commit his atrocities.
The Spanish werent the only ones killing off and subjugating the native populations of the Americas. All the colonial European powers (Britain, France, Spain, Holland and Portugal), as well as the US did the same.
And this whole Pinchet thing, the bastard killed thousands of his own people and your trying to say that we where in the wrong for getting rid of his ass????? Wake up.
Youre absolutely correct that Pinochet was a bastard, a bastard we installed after plotting and assisting in the Coup d Etat that overthrew the democratically elected president of Chile. This occurred September 11, 1973. See here for more info: http://www.lakota.clara.net/Library/garzon.html
Maybe Stalin would have been a better leader of the 'free world'???? Good ol' Chairman Mao was a great supporter of Human Rights!!
Red herring. No one suggested such nonsense.
Wake up people. You bitch and bitch about how bad the U.S. is and yet you fail to point out how the rest of the WORLD is a million times worse. IF we are so BAD why does everyone want to move here?????? Do you have any concept to how great your lives are??? Stalin and Mao would have you shot for posting anti-govt material. IN Africa you probably wouldnt have any arms so you couldnt type if you wanted to. Thats if you hadnt starved to death by the time you turned your P.C. on (provided you even had power).
WAKE UP.
And how many of you bitching fools even voted?????
More red herrings. Yes I voted. Its one way to express my agreement/disagreement/opinion. Im thankful I have that opportunity and the opportunity to express my disagreement or dissatisfaction with the government. Just cause people want to move here doesnt mean we dont have problems or work to do. I vote for expressing ones opinion rather than complacent going with the flow.
Cheers,
CPiolo
-
-
-
CPiolo
People on both sides of this argument have made some valid points. But I also see many ad homimen attacks and outright racism and religious bigotry. Amazing, I will single you out for your towel-head remarks because, -- understandably after the 11th of September were all, to say the least, upset --Ive seen comments like these from you several times over the last year. But it doesnt excuse such remarks. I dont see similar comments about Christians, who committed the largest terrorist attack on the US up till the September 11. I know , from personal experience, you to be a kind and generous man. Such comments are beneath you.
Let me say the United States of America is one of the best places on the planet to live. We enjoy opportunities and a standard of living not found in most of the world. We have material wealth, freedoms, beautiful and varied landscapes and good people. We are not alone in much of this apart from the opportunities available here to rise above your beginnings and achieve for oneself a better station in life.
But the point that proplog2 is making seems to be falling, for the most part, on deaf ears. Our country has committed some well-documented atrocities over our history. We shouldnt ignore this. To do so risks repeating these mistakes.We have supported and installed some of the most horrible and repressive leader s and governments the world has ever known. This is not propaganda. They are not simply mistakes. These are not isolated incidents. Many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions have died, and many millions have suffered under these regimes. By supporting and maintaining such regimes, we are complicit in the crimes perpetrated. Please dont take my word for it, I challenge you to investigate our role in some of these:
The planning and execution, by Henry Kissinger and the CIA, of the overthrow, by Agosto Pinochet, of the democratically elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende (another September 11). There is a movement to have Kissinger tried for war crimes.
Our participation in the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Guatemala, Arbenz.
Our involvement in the civil war, for which we were convicted by the World Court, in Nicaragua. Also Iran-Contra.
Our support for the repressive military dictatorships in South America of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Chile.
Our support of Suddharto of Indonesia while his government was massacring the people of East Timor.
The list goes on, but this should suffice to begin with. I have traveled to some of these places. I have friends and family from some of these places. Many have suffered terribly. Apart form the repression of their governments, they have lost family members, spent time in jail or have had to flee their country. The populations of these countries are very well aware of our role there, even if, for the most part, the majority of Americans are not.
What most amazes me is the lack of hatred and animosity I have found. While there is much resentment towards our government and some isolated incidents of general anti-Americanism, these people can make the distinction between a countrys government and its people, between centers of power and non-participants. Many of these people would like to come to the US to enjoy the good life we have, in spite of what we have done to their county and the personal price they may have paid. They recognize the opportunities and the good aspects of the US.
Our intentions may have been for the best (although I dont believe thats true quite often), but what damage have we done, what price have innocents paid and how many times has our involvement come back to bite us in the ass? How many of our own have paid a personal price or died? What price have we paid as a people, as a nation?
While being good and having done much good, we have our dark side as well. We need to be aware of this and keep it in mind if we are to progress.
CPiolo
P.S. I would also like to suggest reading the foreign press, in another language if possible. They, apart from giving one a different perspective, whether you agree with or not, have broken some important stories (see the BBCs Greg Palasts coverage of Florida poll abuses in the 2000 presidential election: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=30&row=1), and often cover stories that little or no coverage here at home.
Edited for formatting.
Edited by - CPiolo on 12 November 2002 15:4:16
-
28
UN Vote Unanimous for USA-UK
by Amazing ineven syria voted against iraq by voting for the un resolution.
wow!
and china did not abstain as they have in the past ... the full 15 member sercurity council gave the usa/uk what they want ... while there are no automatic military triggers, the resolution does allow for unilateral action by member states if iraq continues "material breach" which is significant language in un speak.
-
-
CPiolo
Amazing:
Essentially yes, when the bad guys have or are in the process of building nuclear, chemical, or bioligical bombs.
Theres only one problem with this. The US and British governments have shown no proof that Iraq has or is in the process of building nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The dossier provided by the British showed NO NEW evidence. What they presented was years old, some of it ten years old. They havent convinced ranking Republican members of Congress who have access to far more information than the general public. As of 1998 we had destroyed or dismantled ALL of Saddams weapons building facilities. Chemical and biological weapons have a shelf life of about 5 years. So whatever chemical and biological weapons Iraq had in 1998 (no more than 5% remained according Scott Ritter) are almost useless now. There is no evidence that Saddam has any nuclear weapons nor that he is building any.
Amazing, youre a nuclear engineer. You better than almost anyone here, myself included, know what it takes to build nuclear weapons as well as how hot such a local would appear to our military satellites if Iraq was producing the necessary material to manufacture a nuclear weapon. We discovered North Koreas nuclear weapons by satellite (fortunately, North Korea wants to work with us over this issue). Dont you think our government, if it had such evidence against Iraq, would use that to sway public opinion? Of course they would. The PR for this war is enormous.
I believe new weapons inspections are the answer. Iraq has already demonstrated a willingness to allow new unrestricted inspections. They have also demonstrated that they are untrustworthy which reiterates the need for weapons inspections.
The alternative is to keep letting them terrorize, build bombs, and stand around as they kill us - then we and our children will be gone and they and their children will rule with an iron fist.
Building bombs is addressed above. Please name one incidence of Iraq terrorizing the United States. I know of none. In fact, up until the Gulf War they were our ally. Saddams big mistake was invading Kuwait (another repressive dictatorship) without our permission. Since the Gulf War we have reduced their military capacity by 80%, cut off all income from their oil (Oil for Food program and reparations to Kuwait), destroyed 95% of their weapons of mass destruction, destroyed 100% of their weapons manufacturing capacity, imposed the severest economic sanctions in the history of the world, illegally bombed civilian infrastructure (water treatment -- both for drinking water and for treating sewage -- and power facilities), these last two (collective punishment) resulting directly in the deaths of 500,000 innocent children (that doesnt include adult men and women many of whom are innocents as well), and set up no-fly zones in the north and south which have been subjected to regular bombing for the last 10 years. All of this has pretty well eliminated whatever threat Saddam might have been as well as his capacity to rebuild his military.
The two largest terrorist attacks on the US were not committed by Iraq. They were committed by Americans in Oklahoma City (Timothy McVeigh et al) and, for the most, part by Saudis (the Twin Towers).
There are currently countries that we know have nuclear weapons and who have threatened to use them (Pakistan and India). Pakistan is a repressive military dictatorship. There is only one country in the world who has ever used a nuclear weapon -- the US. What ever happened to dtente?
Even if Iraq did possess a nuclear weapon, they have no means to deliver it. We the US have a missile defense system that is, bar none, the best in the world. We spend more on the military than the next six or seven countries combined. We have military facilities in 160 or so of the 192 nations registered with the U.N. There is nobody in the world capable of threatening us militarily -- nobody. So even if Iraq did have the means, it is extremely unlikely that any missile would ever reach our shores. Saddam also knows that any nuclear attack on the US would result in massive retaliation that would utterly destroy Saddam himself and Iraq. He may be evil, but he isnt stupid and, as is obvious, his own survival is at the top of his list of priorities.
You are correct in that the U.N. is a weak and ineffectual organization. Much of that is our own fault. George Will recently pointed out that the Security Council reflects a post-World War II world. We dont live in such a world any more and power has shifted dramatically since then. Maybe we should be working on strengthening the U.N. as a peacekeeping force, reducing our need to police the world and increasing worldwide cooperation in such an effort. We have done a miserable job of it so far.
As well, Bush and his team planned control of the Middle East before he became president, before September 11th and regardless if Saddam was in power:
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
Rebuilding America's Defenses
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdfThe PNAC report also:
refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';
describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';
reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;
says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';
spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';
calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;
hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';
and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.
So, no matter how theyre selling the war now, the plans were in place long ago.
CPiolo
-
28
UN Vote Unanimous for USA-UK
by Amazing ineven syria voted against iraq by voting for the un resolution.
wow!
and china did not abstain as they have in the past ... the full 15 member sercurity council gave the usa/uk what they want ... while there are no automatic military triggers, the resolution does allow for unilateral action by member states if iraq continues "material breach" which is significant language in un speak.
-
-
CPiolo
Amazing:
Again, I agree with you that Saddam is a despicable and evil man, but the world is full of such leaders. Do you suggest we go around the world and effect regime change wherever we, the US, the epitome of morality, find someone who we deem unfitting to lead a country. What gives us the right apart from our might. We have faired horribly in the past (just look at Afghanistan its worse and more corrupt than it was before we invaded just about everywhere but the capital).
You also seem to be repeating a lot of propaganda for the initial invasion of Iraq and the current campaign for another much of which has turned out to be false.
insead they raped Kuwait, caused a lot of destruction, raped, pillaged, killed innocent civilians deliberately like a bunch of Hells Angels in uniforms, etc
Beware of government propaganda, Libertarians say
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=611more than that, he planned to go into Saudi Arabia and take it too
In war, some facts less factual
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.htmlSaddam was not then known to be involved with any majori terrorists groups like Hesbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc.
Analysis: Iraq and al-Qaeda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2284123.stmAs well, your analogy fails. First, because Saddam currently threatens no one apart from his own population. Not us certainly. None of those who would be most threatened (his Middle Eastern neighbors or Europe) have asked to take him out. Instead they almost unanimously agree that any military action would destabilize the region further and would increase the Saddams threat to them, as well as increase further hatred towards the US and increasing not diminishing the threat against us posed by terrorist groups. This is confirmed by the head of the CIA. These neighboring countries have also declined to allow us to use their territory as a base to launch or support an attack against Iraq.
Second, we didnt just look the other way while Saddam committed his atrocities. We provided him the weapons, the knowledge, the delivery systems and the encouragement to attack Iran because we felt it was in our national interest to weaken Iran.
Just two years ago Dick Cheney as CEO of Haliburton did about $28 million worth of business with the Iraqi government (all perfectly legal and above board). But can you tell me how in the last two years, since Cheney took office, the threat of Saddam has increased so that he is suddenly worth attacking instead of doing business with?
Saddam has no nukes. He is unable to import the necessary equipment and materials to build or develop nuclear weapons. Republican Senator Robert Byrd was unconvinced by the administrations evidence of this or of his future capacity to produce such weapons. He has no means of delivering them. He may have some biological weapons, but again how will he deliver these penned in as he is?
CPiolo
-
28
UN Vote Unanimous for USA-UK
by Amazing ineven syria voted against iraq by voting for the un resolution.
wow!
and china did not abstain as they have in the past ... the full 15 member sercurity council gave the usa/uk what they want ... while there are no automatic military triggers, the resolution does allow for unilateral action by member states if iraq continues "material breach" which is significant language in un speak.
-
-
CPiolo
Let me begin by saying that there is no doubt Saddam Hussein is a sadistic, evil despot and the Iraqi people would be better off without a leader like him.
But why do we need more resolutions when we already have more than necessary and while Iraq has already agreed to unlimited inspections?
UN Security Council Resolutions relating to Iraq
http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/scriraq.htmlMany cite Saddams atrocities. However his worst atrocities were committed with our complicity and while Donald Rumsfeld was normalizing relations with Iraq under Bush Sr. We provided Saddam with the chemicals and germs, as well as the means of delivering them. We turned a blind eye then while Saddam gassed Kurds and used chemical weapons against Iran.
Why is Saddam such a threat now with an army at perhaps 20% the strength of ten years ago, with 95% of his weapons of mass destruction destroyed and with 100% of his weapons building capacity destroyed as of 1998, with no present means of delivering a nuclear or chemical threat against the US, while none of his neighbors who are most vulnerable to an attack feel threatened, with most of the European continent against military action (excepting the British and Italian governments), while penned in between the northern and southern no-fly zones, while having been bombed for the last 10 years? Former Senior Weapons Inspector, a conservative registered Republican who served 12 years in the Marines says that Iraq poses the US no threat. Ritter proposes returning the inspectors - unfettered --, but doesnt feel more resolutions are necessary.
Scott Ritter links:
In His Own Words
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/ritter.htmlSpying on Saddam
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.htmlCNNs Hatchet Job on Scott Ritter
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1026145118423&call_page=TS_News_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=ColumnistsSpeech to Iraqi Parliament
http://www.cspan.org/iraq/ritter.aspAmazing doesnt want any civilian casualties. Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children have died in the last ten years due directly to UN sanctions and our bombing of civilian infrastructure, including water treatment plants (prohibited under international law). A price that Madeleine Albright says is worth it.
See:
Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for the Future
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htmWe think the price is worth it.
http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.htmlThiChi believes that once we have regime change in Iraq, tensions will subside. But in order to effect regime change military action will be necessary. Our own CIA believes this will increase tensions and the risk of attack by whatever weapons of mass destruction Saddam may have.
C.I.A. Director Suggests Iraq May Not Strike Unless Provoked
http://truthout.com/docs_02/10.10B.cia.iraq.htmThe new resolution doesnt show agreement by the UN or world leaders for our position. It is a pragmatic decision made so that we wont, for instance, oppose Russias ongoing war in Chechnya, impose economic sanctions on dissenters (through the WTO, World Bank or IMF, or through the withholding of foreign aid) or cut other nations out of future oil deals with a new Iraqi government. In other words, theyre watching out for their own asses, not doing this out of some altruistic desire for a more just world.
Besides, we pulled the inspectors out voluntarily in 1998 to remove them from danger during Clintons bombing campaign. Iraq just decided not to let them return because we were spying on them. The information was used to target sites bombed by the Clinton administration (see Ritter).
The Big Lie: Part 1
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/021028_Big_Lie1.HTMThe Big Lie: Part 2
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/021029_Big_Lie2.HTMWhat a Difference 4 Years Make
http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.htmlCPiolo
Sure that his views will be controversial. -
71
Cygnus is in bad shape
by Cygnus injust so i don't miss anybody who is interested.... my results from the ekg and the echogram showed a severe leak in a heart valve.
i am going for an angiogram on the 15th but the cardiologist says the liklihood is great that i will need open heart surgery.
rare for a 30 year old but if necessary, it is necessary.. no word yet on the results of the blood work for liver enzymes and hepatitis.
-
-
CPiolo
Cygnus:
I'm sorry to hear about your health problems. I wish you a quick recovery and all the best to you and your wife.
CPiolo