Petraeus Dashes Right-Wing Dreams Of His Presidential Run
Petraeus Dashes Right-Wing Dreams Of His Presidential Run
In September, right-wing pundits began floating the idea that Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, should run for president. The New York Sun ran an editorial in favor of the idea. National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez called it a “dream sequence,” while Bill Kristol said Petraeus as a VP candidate could “avert electoral disaster for the GOP” in 2008.
On Fox News Sunday this morning, Petraeus rejected any talk about his presidential prospects. Asked by host Chris Wallace if he had “any interest in that,” Petraeus gave an emphatic “none”:
WALLACE: Some pundits have suggested that perhaps just like General Dwight Eisenhower in the early ’50s, that you might at some point take off your uniform and run for president. Any interest in that, sir?
PETRAEUS: None, Chris, at all. Thank you. I have great respect for those who do choose to serve our country that way. I’ve chosen to serve our country in uniform.
And I think that General Sherman had it right when he gave what is now commonly referred to as a Shermanesque response when asked a similar question.
Watch it:
The quote by Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman that Petraeus refers to — “If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve” — is often quoted by military officials attempting to definitively squash rumors of a presidential run. In 1996, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell “half-jokingly” referred to his wife Alma as “Mrs. Sherman” when he decided against running for president. [The Choice, p. 310]
With Petraeus taking himself out of the running, will the right wing now turn to Gen. Peter Pace for their dreams of a military general as their candidate?
Transcript:
WALLACE: Finally, and you just mentioned it, General, the presidential primaries are about to begin.Some pundits have suggested that perhaps just like General Dwight Eisenhower in the early ’50s, that you might at some point take off your uniform and run for president. Any interest in that, sir?
PETRAEUS: None, Chris, at all. Thank you. I have great respect for those who do choose to serve our country that way. I’ve chosen to serve our country in uniform.
And I think that General Sherman had it right when he gave what is now commonly referred to as a Shermanesque response when asked a similar question.
WALLACE: So are you giving a Shermanesque response — if elected, you will not serve?
PETRAEUS: I am, Chris. And I don’t think it would ever get to that point anyway.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Right Wing wants “Daddy” to be president. If Peter Pace can convince them that he can be the “father figure” they so crave in their leader, then he can easily win their nomination. They do not believe in a civilian-run government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” They believe in a string dictator who will make the rest of the country behave as they want us to behave. (Not them, mind you, but us liberals.)
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pmPresidential Peter Pace? Prophetic? Perhaps. Possible? PFFFFFFT.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pmWell Gen. David Petraeus might give some thought about serving our soldiers as he’s been serving the White House and spreading their lives. Now the Right Wing might have the American people fooled but the troops know Gen. David Petraeus and Gates aren’t interested in their needs or lives. The only person these two suck ups are serving in the Liar-in-Chief. Ask the troops about their lack of equipment and supplies. Ask the troops why their ordered to extend their stay as other countries leave. Ask the troops why it’s more important to protect the Iraq oil fields then the Iraq people. Gen. David Petraeus is a disgrace to the uniform and the US Military.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pmThe entire “Petraeus for President” thing was a totally insincere, artificial hype campaign designed to increase his supposed gravitas and credibility at the time he testified before Congress last summer, and to sell the “surge.” There simply were no “right-wing dreams” of Petraeus running at all.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pmi think that condi would still be amenable to a “draft condi” groundswell…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pmIsn’t it funny how “support the troops” means different things for the right and the left? To the left, it means taking care of the enlisted soldiers and vets. To the right, it means a cult-like worship of the right-wing streak in the officer corps.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 23, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Somebody’s got a crush…
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 23, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Sorry but I hear him and Schwartzkoff have a little something already going.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pmCall a wwaaammmmbulance and drive it off a cliff with them in it….
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:36 pmI do not know about the General, but I know about Mitt Romney. The Concord gets it right. Romney is nothing but a rich Snake Oil salesman!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-hampshire-newspaper-concord-monitor.html#links
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pmThat’s funny.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 23, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
Aw shucks…
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pmPetraeus’ legacy in Iraq is yet to be determined. Right now, Bush&Co have painted the best possible face on Iraq, but “victory” and “leaving the country” are not in their vocabulary. With 140,000 troops and 160,000 mercenaries (300,000) it’s hard to accept that the additional 10% (30,000) troops could have made any permanent solution.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pmSadr’s army is in a 6-month cease fire, while the Mailki government is no closer to a political solution than it was months ago. Aside from the countless deaths, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have left the country, and while some are returning, their homes, jobs, schools and services are not yet there. Also, the Shiite dominant government is purging Sunnis from positions of authority.
The region is still a tinderbox.
Petraeus for president is a ridiculous proposition, but it shows me how desperate the wingnuts are for a leader – any leader.
With 140,000 troops and 160,000 mercenaries (300,000) it’s hard to accept that the additional 10% (30,000) troops could have made any permanent solution.
Comment by Marie — December 23, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Right, Marie. I agree. I personally wonder if part of the “success” of the “surge” is the result of a time-tested GOOPer strategy -the payoff!
Have they simply started paying the militias to lay low?
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pmI think Admiral Fallon is doing some good work there. The insurgents so called are being paid instead of murdered and since bush made sure there would be no jobs for Iraqis it is only fair and should have been done before. Fallon seems to be handing responsibilities to the Iraqis and withdrawing the troops toward Baghdad. When Adm. Fallon took over, he told his staff not to use rumsfailed’s phrase the long war. And I believe that Admiral Fallon and Admiral Mullen want to withdraw our troops from Iraq and may do it despite the permanent bases and the ziocons indifference to the suffering of our troops and the destruction of our armed forces.
Read Jim Petras’ article THE US MILITARY VS THE ISRAELI-FIRSTERS. There is a pitched battle going on between the immoral, murderous duel citizenship ziocons and the Military Brass that cares for our troops and America’s ability to defend itself from real threats like the ziocons here at home and chertoff’s fascist initiatives which should be given more space on the left blogs.
Petraus was there when Col. Weislung was murdered for investigating the Blackwater corruption Col. Lang wrote on his blog about brutal cleansing of Iraqi neighborhoods by Petraus early in the war. Look up Petraus, he is much more evil than just being a kiss-up chickenshit.
I think Gen. Pace helped to hold back the neocons and cheney from starting WWIII and he made some courageous statements publicized in only a few places at a thinktank obviously directed to the military that they would be liable for war crimes if they obeyed an illegal order, I think referring both to the torture and an order to attack Iran without cause. Gen. Pace was fired not long after these amazingly brave statement.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pmPetraeus:
“Not president of the USA, anyways,
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:01 pmbut my chances are good here in Iraq……….”
Betrayus is a cheap sellout, certainly not a “good man”, but another tool in the Bushite box of dull, ineffective liars. One of the few left, among those who hadn’t the courage or morals to leave rather than subborn treason.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:16 pmGeneral Betray-us isn’t running?? Aw shucks!
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmWe could have had a field day with Betray-us if he chose to run. What skeletons would come flying out of that closet! No fun at all now – no fun at all!
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmI really wished I had been able to sit down with Frank Herbert and talk, because, although I never read his spoken words until I came across this article by him, I believe we would have belly laughed at the human condition together:
http://www.dunenovels.com/news/genesis.html
He describes how there are so many scrambling to usurp the power structure that develops around the truly talented / powerful – the hero or superhero. Always someone desiring to lead or be lead, craving some new jihad, so they can punish the defiant or benefactors of the status quo. He identifies those scramblers as being predominantly populated with the insane, which caused me to burst out laughing.
The truly talented / powerful have no desire to lead nor be lead, but want to provide some structure to maintain a minimum level of subsistance for everyone, while removing obstacles from everyone’s success / self-actualization.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:06 pmHe’s a political lap dog, he’s not stupid.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pmThe truly talented / powerful have no desire to lead nor be lead, but want to provide some structure to maintain a minimum level of subsistance for everyone, while removing obstacles from everyone’s success / self-actualization.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler —
Interesting observations, Jason, and on the whole I will have to agree.
I am certain the person you describe would not be found among any given gathering of neo-con militant industrialists…..
However, I don’t think lumping “truly talented” and “powerful” together will work, it’s like trying to mix oil and water.
A teacher of mine once offered the information that one should seek spiritual strength rather than power.
A person only has power if others give it to them.
Power corrupts.
And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:19 pmRegardless of what you think of the war, Petraeus seems like a very decent man doing a very good job.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Sorry but General Betrayus is not a decent man and he is doing a lousy job. First he screws up training our troops and somehow “loses” thousands of munitions.
Then before the 2004 elections he violated military codes and entered into the political arena saying that “there was “tangible progress“ in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward†which was all a lie.
And finally, he has pretty much violated every tenant he put forth in his “guide to counter-insurgency based on his experiences in Iraq”. If he had followed his own guide, he would not have agreed to the escalation and possibly 800 men and women would still be alive today.
The man has blood on his hands. He IS NOT a good person and he IS NOT doing a good job for anyone other than the Bush Crime Family.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 pmHave they simply started paying the militias to lay low?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Why do you think that Bush’s requests for “emergency” funding have gone from 70 billion a year to 195 billion a year. It costs a lot of money to pay off those Shieks. How do you feel, righties, to know that our government is using your tax dollars (or more honestly borrowed funds that we will one day have to pay back) to bribe those Islamofascists to not kill us?
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:32 pmWhy do you think that Bush’s requests for “emergency†funding have gone from 70 billion a year to 195 billion a year.
Comment by bilbobaggins — December 23, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Agreed, Bilbo.
“When in doubt, throw money at ‘em.”
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:20 pmnevar / justasking,
Oh, I certainly meant “personal power” and not “power” in the sense of political / financial / military power.
In my personal experience, I’ve ridden along as others have steered the vehicle off the road, then they let go of the wheel looking around for someone to blame for the wreck. I would then take the wheel, get the vehicle back on the road, only to have the same fools try to take the wheel back.
It is in that sense, that I understand Frank Herbert well.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:25 pmDoes anyone else find it strange that the heroic race, the “Fremen” of Dune, are the descendent’s of Muslim Arabs? While the fascists, as represented by the Empire, are wholly corrupt.
Could JMH honestly claim understanding of an author who expressed such thoughts?
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 pmI dont’ get it! Even if I were to agree that Petaeus were the bestest general in the history of the world, how does that qualify him for President ? I understand that Eisenhower did pretty good. But the skills of military aren’t the same as the skills of being president.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:10 pm#25 bilbobaggins,
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pmThanks for reminding me – I meant to mention earlier that Petraeus is the guy who lost huge quantities of munitions and called it merely an accoounting error – that accounting error caused how many additional AMerican deaths?
The great thing? – ANY Republican is a fantastic target for the election. The bad thing? Americans are dumber than a bag of hammers.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm#30, pete,
Given the power of today’s muslim nations, I am astonished at Frank Herbert’s insight as a futurist, selecting them as the eventual inheriters / victors of the future. This is similar to the writer(s) of Firefly / Serenity mythology, in which China has a heavy influence.
Fascism / communism / statism will always be pitted against a major religion coupled with the concepts of basic liberties – freedom of speech, assembly, religion, enterprise, etc.
It is also naive to claim that one or the other is good or bad. Herbert just points out how there are many movements vying for power, often colluding, while scheming against one another. In Dune, the only truly “evil” people in the movie were Harkonnen’s, not Corrino, who ruled the empire, nor CHOAM, nor Ixians, and so forth. Harkonnens were evil, because they violated property rights – they killed, raped, stole and destroyed. Everyone else was merely self serving.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:21 pmjustasking,
If by liberal minded, you mean believing in freedom of speech, assembly, religion, enterprise, etc., then I am way past you. Today’s Democrats and Progressives are just Communist / Fascist lite, desiring to nationalize industries, set prices through taxes and seize private property – which makes them no better than those wagin genocide in Africa, because violating property rights is just a slow eradication of a people based on ideology.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 pmComment by Jason M. Hendler — December 23, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
At the risk of going even farther off topic:
The movie bears little resemblance to the novels. It’s one of the worst adaptations I’ve ever seen.
If you read the books, it is quite clear that the entire Imperial system is corrupt and doomed to fall. Including Houses Corrino and Atreides. Duke Leto is a bit of a reformer, compared to his father, but he didn’t change enough to save himself. A trait he shares with most reformers in the real world.
However, that’s precisely why House Atreides fell, for a time. Despite all Leto’s claims of “noble purpose”; it was not enough to win support. Which, of course, is the ultimate fate of totalitarianism in the real world. Despots don’t have a great chance at peaceful retirement or death from natural causes.
As for major religions being allied with “basic liberties”? You must have studied different religions than I. Most sects only protect the right to participate; so long as one belongs to the right tribe, race, or clan. Those who don’t conform are excluded or punished. If one accepts the idea of an afterlife? That punishment is eternal.
In fact, modern religions are totalitarian in nature. They tend to be as xenophobic, and exclusive, as any race or nationality. Despots and religious leaders even use the same methods and rhetoric. Religions merely elevate the Faith above the State while secular tyrants elevate themselves. I don’t much care for either one.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 pm#36, pete,
Now I remember the movie’s one true failing, the conversion of the “wierding way” fighting style to that sound amplification device. The Sci-fi channel’s merging of Dune and Dune Messiah fixed that, and while I loved the intensity and beauty of all the actors / actresses in the Sci-fi channel’s version, it didn’t quite capture the scale and oppressiveness of the movie or the books. Still I would prefer those now working on a new movie would spend their time adapting Heretics of Dune and Chapterhouse Dune (bring on the Honored Matres!).
House Atriedes fell due to a confluence of forces:
1) House Harkonnen felt threatened by, and jealous of, House Atriedes growing wealth and power, and sought to take what they had
2) House Corrino were dependent upon House Harkonnen’s control of the spice, so went along with House Harkonnen’s plots to destroy House Atriedes. House Corrino also recognized House Atriedes growing power within the Landsraad, but would have solved things through political / familial partnership.
3) The Guild and the Bene Gesserit feared Paul Atriedes powers / possible future, and wanted him killed as an abomination.
Back to religions, modern religions, having fought directly against totalitarian states in two great wars and a cold war are nowhere near as oppressive as before, so your view of them is archaic.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:04 amOops! I should have said that “Religious bureaucracy is totalitarian in nature”. Most humble worshipers are more laid back, until they get whipped into a frenzy by a “charismatic leader”.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:05 am#38, pete,
Insofar that clergy ranks and heirarchy are not nominated / elected by all church members, religions are clearly not democratic, nor even republican institutions – true.
In the west, religions don’t have the power to deny anyone a livelyhood, as it was in the past. These days, many are adopting new policies to be more open / tolerent – Episcopal and Anglican church leaderships have accepted homosexual marriage, but now many American diosces are succeeding from the main bodies.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:23 amBack to religions, modern religions, having fought directly against totalitarian states in two great wars and a cold war are nowhere near as oppressive as before, so your view of them is archaic.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 24, 2007 @ 12:04 am
While religions have opposed totalitarian states, the two are as likely to be allied. I have always thought that the Catholic Church’s real opposition to the U.S.S.R. was because they shut off the cash flow. Though I admit it’s open to debate and irrelevant to this conversation.
As for modern religions being less oppressive than before? Try to sell that to your stereotypical Muslim woman, or the victims of Bush’s, self-described, “Crusade”. Or Pat Robertson. Or Fred Phelps. Or a “good Catholic Girl” with 8 kids. Or the dwindling supply of hardliners who want to nuke everything related to Islam.
We never would have heard of neocons without the “religious right”. They supply a ready-made base which is conditioned to obey. Obedient people rarely consider themselves oppressed. And, if no one complains, there is no oppression.
The oppression, and power, of religion is cyclical. When I was young, I honestly thought that religion would become irrelevant and reason would, finally, win out. Boy was I wrong. Not sharing it myself, I failed to understand the Zeal of the Faithful and the Power of the Message.
Today we are witnessing a Presidential race in which Faith is playing a larger role than any race I’ve studied. Heck, the Republican front runner has expressed many “archaic” ideas. And, though he tries to deny it, his words and actions would indicate that he wants his religion to play a larger, if not supreme, role in American society. And I can’t imagine an admitted atheist being elected to a national office.
Oppression does not require imprisonment, torture, or the burning of heretics. Indeed, the most insidious form of oppression is stifling of debate. When the mere act of asking a question is proscribed; there is no liberty. Is that not the ultimate goal of oppression?
December 24th, 2007 at 12:48 amJason M. Hendler
The Catholic Church declared itself neutral to Hitler, who himself was a Catholic. Not only that, contrasted with the very religious Germans of WWII (The atheists got to share gas chambers with the Jews) the western world of the time was actually secular.
Further, WWI was not a war about religion so much as a war about territory. Where religion came into it, was via the ancient traditions of the divine right of kings, which supported both the Kaiser and his cousins in England.
Of the five most religious countries in the world, four of them have been victims of ethnic strife in the last six years.
Indeed, to a large extent religion and poverty have been linked in most countries, with America being the only majorly religious first world country.
Of the top ten most atheist countries in the world:
1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
Of the top ten only Vietnam is a third world country.
Of the top ten Religious countries in the world, well Nigeria, a country famous for scams, the odd bout of ethnic cleansing, kidnappings, and high grade oil is the most religious country in the world.
Indeed, aside from the US, there is a definite corrolation between wealth and the prevelance of Atheism. The richest countries in the world tend towards being the most atheist while the poorest, tend towards being the most religious.
December 24th, 2007 at 7:01 amYippie Ki Yay:
December 24th, 2007 at 9:03 amAnother want to be tough guy who is scared shitless of homosexuals
“Merry moonbat Christmas surrender monkeys.”
Well thanks, Bert, for taking time out from your busy day of yelling rude stuff at teenage girls out the window of your barely-functioning Yugo.
I’d wish you the same back, but I don’t worship the dead-guy-on-stick. Sorry about that.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:38 amPetraeus: “I’m a ‘yes’ man. Who would I say ‘yes’ to if I were president? Oh, that’s right. I could put Cheney on the ticket with me.”
http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/
December 24th, 2007 at 10:04 am#41, Bruce Gorton,
Those countries not devout in a religion are most likely to be over-run by communist / fascist / statist powers from within or without, so I don’t see that attribute as a plus.
As for your point about Nigeria, and any sub-Saharan African nations, unless there is a true conversion of ALL their citizens, the few non-believers among them will always slaughter the faithful as sheep. Let me lay out the pattern for you:
- missionaries help stablize a population by training aboriginal people to farm and construct homes, etc.
- population thrives, generating wealth and prosperity
- neighboring unstable population sees wealth and prosperity of thriving population and migrate to their location
- influx of unstable population destablizes thriving population
- war, genocide, disease collapses thriving population
How many times do we need to see this cycle happen? Perhaps sub-Saharan Africans needn’t be converted to Christianity, but they do need to learn to respect and enforce property rights, the first tenant of which is – you can’t own another person, therefore, you cannot kill them, injure them, rape them, nor steal from them …..
December 24th, 2007 at 10:25 amJason M. Hendler
Err, yeah, that’s why the most religious countries in the world (Places like Brazil, Morrocco, and Nigeria) are also the poorest, because that 3 percent of the Nigerian population that self-identifies as being agnostic or atheist is out there slaughtering th 97% that makes Nigeria the most religious country in the world.
Yeah, and I am Santa Claus.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:32 amAww…that’s too bad!
December 24th, 2007 at 12:12 pmIraq Me Dave Patreaus would have bee a tough candidate being that he’s been the most successful P.R. flack in the Bush administration so far.
#47, Bruce,
They may be poor, but they aren’t committing genocide in Brazil, etc. Something about the cultures in Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, that allows them to guiltlessly slaughter entire villages and tribes.
Again, if those cultures don’t develop respect and enforcement of property rights, they will never end their cycle of not merely poverty, but genocide, rape, disease and destruction.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:19 pmJason M. Hendler
Brazil has never really been free of ethnic strife.
Anyway, the problem with Sub-Saharan Africa is that it is actually too religious. You see it in American history with the impact of the missionaries there, and in Australian history with the impact of the missionaries there – where you get missionaries to get misery, murder and mayhem.
The Christian religion reinforces authoritatianism – which is why where you have missionaries its a countdown to genocide. Those who do not accept the authority of the Church or of the Temple, get killed by those who do because it is just wrong to deny that higher authority.
Africa needs a healthy dose of atheist skepticism where it stops following things on faith. Africans tend to follow the words of their Church, their leaders, and their cultural chiefs, but seldom stop to think for themselves. They support their leaders eerily like Republicans support Bush – no matter what those leaders do they will win those elections.
(Note; If you are black and an American you do not get to call yourself an African American without having duel citizenship. I am an African, you are an American – skin colour doesn’t come into it.)
Religious thinking teaches faith as a virtue, whereas what is needed is doubt. If you doubt your leaders they lose the best of their ability to nail you when they turn dictator – because you don’t believe them worthy of the power and thus don’t hand over that power. Dictators as much as any bad government, rule by the consent of the ruled.
Thus what Africa really needs is not religious missionaries seeking to spread misinformation regarding condoms, it needs atheist missionaries teaching people to think. Africa lacks thought more than anything, the willingness to stop and consider what you are being told, the ability to reject the false America sold to us.
And what is the false America? MTV, gangsta’ rap, Jerry Springer, Gordon Gecko and Britney Spears. You see it as trash entertainment, Africa sees it as a model for success. The fancy suit, the fancy car, the fancy jet, generate faith and the profits can go hang.
You talk about the need to respect property rights like Africa is afflicted with thieves, Africa is afflicted with poor hungry people who have never stopped to consider that with a better government they needn’t be poor and hungry. Property rights don’t come into it, the illusion versus the reality of success does.
Right now South Africa, in a bid to avoid another Mugabe in office, has chosen as the head of the ANC (The ruling party by over 2/3rds majority) Jacob Zuma, a man famous for thinking that a cold shower somehow prevents AIDS. It is because the Youth League has faith, and not doubt when it comes to the leadership of the ANC.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:03 pm#50, justasking,
Perhaps it is, but those are not the policies of the Democratic Party, not even its “progressive” wing.
Dems and progs seek to seize wealth from those who know how to create it, and then redistribute that wealth to people exhibiting non-viable behaviours. Subsidizing a non-viable behaviour merely causes that behaviour to persist, weakening those who continue to subsist, while burdoning those who do know how to create wealth.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:05 pmOh, and blaming genocide on atheists: Yeah that’s why the list of top ten atheist countries in the world, are also amongst the most stable, richest, most highly educated and generally democratic countries in the world. You know, like Sweden.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#50, just asking,
Hmmmm, sometimes force is necessary to ensure a safe environment for individuals to develop, so I guess that is where you and I will diverge.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pmBruce,
Religion does not cause the strife directly. As I laid out for you earlier, missionary work allows some small segment of the population to flourish, which then makes it a target by the rest of the population, which doesn’t.
Missionaries DO NOT strive to take wealth and prosperity from others, but to teach those how to generate it for themselves. When missionaries teach these things, it is a threat to existing power structures, who then resort to brutal tactics to stop it.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:09 pmJason M. Hendler
That’s why the American missionaries distributed polio blankets amongst the Indians. Yeah sure boet.
Missionaries are a bad influence in Africa, they teach the ideal of faith, and they don’t teach wealth creation. I have seen the results of missionaries in Africa, they do some good work but they don’t teach wealth creation.
This is because most missionaries are entirely unequiped to teach wealth creation. Wealth creation requires learning from business people, not from some guy taking a bit of a gap before finding a real job.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:13 pm#56, Bruce,
If missionaries teach people how to grow crops, fix / build homes, dig wells, raise livestock, educate in reading and math, avoid injury and disease, then they ARE teaching wealth creation.
Wealth acquisition, in sub-Saharan African terms, requires theft, murder, rape, etc.
Wealth creation, on a basic level, isn’t about banking, stock exchanges and retail.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:25 pmJason M. Hendler
Except:
1: Africans already know how to grow crops on a level which shows just how much of an insult missionary teaching on the subject really is. Most African cultures, such as the Xhosas are long term agricultural cultures.
2: Raising livestock? Do you know what Lebola is? It is the bride price of a Zulu female and it is paid in cows. This tradition looong predates missionaries teaching Africans how to raise cattle. In fact the Nguni cow, renowned for its resistance to disease is an African bred cow that has nothing to do with missionaries teaching Africans how to breed it.
3: Reading and math? Yes, I will grant you that missionary schools teach basic literacy and numeracy, but along with that they teach following authoritarian lines, which in turn leads to Africa’s dictatorships.
4: Avoiding injury and disease, African cultures include washing your hands before eating (Unlike Christianity which is unique in world religions for not having particular cleanliness codes) and avoiding injury is something you learn by, you know, growing up. It is not like Africans were saying “Ooh a big blade like object lets jump on it repeatedly so we can all get bloody.”
December 24th, 2007 at 2:38 pm#58, Bruce,
Didn’t say Africans never new how to grow food or raise livestock prior to missionaries, but after war, disease and famine shatters an area, it is the missionaries who take care of the countless orphans left behind, and teaches them in place of their deceased parents. On top of that, they teach all the other wealth creating things needed to sustain their population.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:46 pm#60, Bruce,
No need to argue this further, by all means, let’s pull all Western support out of Africa and see what happens.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pmOh, and here is the negative effect of missionaries teaching Africans “Farming.”
Missionary styled farming is subsistance farming, which takes up land from larger scale farming efforts and leaves the people with just enough to eat but not enough to actually go compete with the larger farms that are already there.
Not only that, with the subsistance level of agriculture plaguing Africa, Africa is left highly vulnerable to famines because while large scale farming produces a surplus for the lean years, the surplusses from subsistance farming are negligable.
In order to create wealth in Africa you need to move Africa away from being a primary producer. We have a continent which has most of the world’s remaining untapped resources which is poor as heck because we sell our gold, iron and oil unprocessed to the first world and then buy back jewellry, cars and petrol.
Wealth creation is not based on subsistance farming and a bit of pottery on the side, it is not based of creating curios and interesting beadwork, it is based on taking raw materials and creating something that actually has a purpose to it other than to make tourists think they have been to Africa.
It comes from technological advance and the ability to adapt to being a technologically based economy. Missionaries don’t teach good science, they teach what they deem the bare basics of survival which the locals generally already know.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:52 pmJason M. Hendler
Do you know what will happen if you pull out all support?
Africa will starve, it will curse, it will be destabilised, and then it will get its act together and start fixing itself. Oh, and Africa will actually have an easier time of it because a lot of western aid is nothing but thinly vieled stock dumping anyway.
Africa’s dictatorships have long used foreign aid to buy guns. This is the central problem with African aid, it is used by the governments of Africa to bolster their frankly dictatorial regimes, and it is why Bush’s African AIDS aid was such a stuffup.
Bush has spent more on AIDS in Africa than any president before him, but unlike the presidents before him, he didn’t bother to make sure the money was going where it was supposed to, even to the point of not even having proper books being kept on the project. This is Africa, you do not just throw money at the problem.
And you do not send in missionaries. Missionaries cannot solve the problem of Africa, only Africa can solve the problem of Africa.
December 24th, 2007 at 3:02 pmBruce,
Actually, if the West pulled out of Africa, then China and India would move in, as it is their Manifest Destiny.
December 24th, 2007 at 3:11 pmIsn’t here some down on his luck aboriginal who needs someone to help him pull his cart hanging around here somewhere?
December 24th, 2007 at 6:20 pmYou’re wasting your time Bruce. The JMH troll is fully invested in blaming oppression on the oppressed. He’s also firm in his belief that his tax dollars should only be used to kill those he deems “unworthy”.
G’night good people. Peace and joy to you and your’s.
You too trolls.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:45 pm#65, pete,
A desire to use tax dollars to kill would be far more merciful than Dem / Prog designs to use the tax dollars to reinforce non-viable behaviours that lead to far greater catastrophes like the one witnessed in New Orleans.
I want tax dollars directed towards things that would allow individuals to help themselves, not perpetuate denial and decline.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:02 pmJason M. Hendler
You mean how the Democrats wanted to fund upgrading NO’s levies in 2001, and how the Republicans cut funding so that they could help some people in Alaska help themselves build a bridge to nowhere?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:05 pmHEY TP… ARE YOU GOING TO POST THIS RETRACTION?
http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2007/ 12/ 26/ editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/
Editors’ Note: The Ron Paul Vid-Lash
By The New York Times
A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist†Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others†at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:21 am