Letter: Writer’s view was refreshing

Phil Beaver’s views on “freedom” and “justice” (The Advocate, Dec. 1) are refreshing in an otherwise polluted social climate. The politics of dogmatic faiths, religious stressors, diversity and ethnic conflicts have muffled mutual understanding and quality public discourse.

A deeper issue implicitly emphasized by Beaver is dialectics of unfreedom. My life’s work is devoted to the cause of social justice in an unfree world. I am, however, embarrassed by the duality of my success and failure. Search for truth is a painful, sometimes even unrewarding journey. Social institutions are constructs of human ingenuity, needs and interests. Their deification perpetuates myths of gods that failed all powerless mortals.

God Delusion has unleashed chimeras of hope and despair. While humanity continues to suffer oppression of different hues in different fields, pursuits of power politics globally persist at all costs.

The “civil society” stands at the crossroads of freedom. I am uncertain if our civilization will ever achieve a peaceful, prosperous and enlightened world. God, please help save your children from themselves. Happy Holidays!

BRIJ MOHAN

dean emeritus (social work) LSU

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by prbeav - 12/12/2012

InPville, I could not get a post as large as your NOT SO SECULAR post accepted.>>>>You have it correct about the government being religious, but I still assert the Constitution is secular.>>>>What I lobby for is reform of government to become government of the people, by the people, and for the people: governance by the governed has never happened, because the Christian majority that started operating the government ignore the preamble to the Constitution as well as the articles that would support a democratic republic or the rule of law.>>>>America, by insisting on being "under God" has never had the rule of law.>>>>That is the point of my work, and I think we are at a cross roads wherein the reform can be started.>>>>It can start with an annual celebration of the preamble to the US Constitution.>>>>I suspect this thread is about to end, because it is on the bottom of the Advocate's list; thank your for your wonderful posts. Phil Beaver

2) Comment by prbeav - 12/12/2012

Huh?? If a truth cannot be attained, how can it be understood? -[**]-Take for example the question, “Does the God exist?” Many people claim they know—yes/no--and some claim they don’t know. Humankind has learned quite a lot regarding this question. Lots of cultures ended up with a Sun god as the premier god even before monotheism. As humankind explains things, the gods disappear from consideration. For example, the sun is known to be a natural nuclear reactor. I, for one, would not accept even one of the constructs that conclude there is a god. Furthermore, I take little to no interest in men’s speculations on the question, following David Hume’s last thought in Human Understanding: none of it should be considered. One can extrapolate discovery to zero unknowns and predict that one day humankind will prove there is no God. However, most of us know that when it comes to objective truth, perception retreats. Thus, it is possible that with new ways of perceiving, humankind will discover God. For this reason, I cannot claim there is no God. I feel I understand the question but don’t know the truth.

3) Comment by prbeav - 12/12/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

4) Comment by prbeav - 12/12/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

5) Comment by prbeav - 12/12/2012

InPVille, I have not checked this thread in a few days. Sorry.>>>> @prbeav: "Neither faith nor reason can overthrow integrity." Please cite an example where reason would be in conflict with integrity. -[**]-Any case wherein people decide the ends justify the means, you have a candidate for an example. Consider the abolition of slavery. Thomas Paine wrote very sensibly about the harm slavery does to the master and helped form an abolition society in Philadelphia both in 1775. See http://www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm . At the time, many slave owners were experiencing the stark reality that the proliferation of slave families was becoming an unexpected financial burden. Yet, they continued to reason that they had to have slavery. Integrity was delivered 90 years and 750,000 American casualties later.>>>>>> "However, I think the insufficiency of honesty shows through their accomplishments and failures." Politics is the art of the possible. Had the people who put together the U.S. constitution written into the document a prohibition for slavery and insisted on the immediate implementation of what they wanted to country to eventually become, the document would never have been ratified. There would be no preamble of the constitution or any other part of that document to cite. -[**]-Your point is well taken, but nevertheless hypothetical. I prefer the hypothetical that if slave owners had faced their own situations with integrity the 1787 Constitution might have committed to ending slavery lets say 60 years after the end of the slave trade--a provision the Constitution had. I further speculate that they could not think with integrity because they also were in no mood to be dominated by the northern states, who were hitting them with tariffs and other abuses.

6) Comment by prbeav - 12/12/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

7) Comment by InPVille - 09/12/2012

@prbeav: "Nevertheless, they produced a secular constitution." NOT SO SECULAR - When the U.S. Constitution was ratified the term establishment of religion had a specific meaning. It meant picking out one specific religious demonination to which citizens were required to give exclusive financial and legal support. -[parag]- George Washington served as the presiding officer U.S. Constitutional Convention before being elected the first U.S. President. When George Washington took the oath as first president of the United States he did so with one hand resting on a Bible. He kissed it afterwards. Since that time, more frequently than not, the president has taken his oath of office with one hand on a bible. Presidents up to Dwight D. Eisenhower did likewise. Eisenhower instead said a prayer. Theodore Roosevelt did not use a bible. After President Kennedy was assassinated, President Johnson took the oath of office with one hand on a Catholic missal. -[parag]- The Judiciary Act of 1789 which established the Judicial Courts of the United States included the words "so help me God" to the oath of office for Supreme Court and District Court judgeships. "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=199 -[parag]- Office of the Chaplain U.S. Senate http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm "Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State. The first Senate, meeting in New York City on April 25, 1789, elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provost, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first Chaplain. During the past two hundred and seven years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation. The role of the Chaplain as spiritual advisor and counselor has expanded over the years from a part-time position to a full-time job as one of the Officers of the Senate. The Office of the Chaplain is nonpartisan, nonpolitical, and nonsectarian." -[parag]- Office of the Chaplain U.S. House of representatives http://chaplain.house.gov/ "History of the Chaplaincy "Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers." "The election of the Rev. William Linn as Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Continental Congresses of each day's proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain. The early chaplains alternated duties with their Senate counterparts on a weekly basis. The two conducted Sunday services for the Washington community in the House Chamber every other week. Since the election of Rev. Linn in 1789, the House has been served by chaplains of various religious denominations, including Baptist (7), Christian (1), Congregationalist (2), Disciples of Christ (1), Episcopalian (4), Lutheran (1), Methodist (16), Presbyterian (15), Roman Catholic (1), Unitarian (2), and Universalist (1)"

8) Comment by InPVille - 09/12/2012

@prbeav: "Neither faith nor reason can overthrow integrity." Please cite an example where reason would be in conflict with integrity. -[**]- "However, I think the insufficiency of honesty shows through their accomplishments and failures." Politics is the art of the possible. Had the people who put together the U.S. constitution written into the document a prohibition for slavery and insisted on the immediate implementation of what they wanted to country to eventually become, the document would never have been ratified. There would be no preamble of the constituion or any other part of that document to cite. -[**]- "The truth often is a non-viable object of integrity, and perhaps some truth cannot be attained. Because the truth is immutable, sometimes unreachable, only understanding can be expected." Huh?? If a truth cannot be attained, how can it be understood? -[**]-

9) Comment by prbeav - 08/12/2012

I seek objective truth, which cannot be subject to God's influence. Focus on subjective truth--your truth--instead of understanding misleads people. Morality instead of ethics misguides. Existence is not subjective; does not respond to opinion; does not accommodate individual “truth”; and does not comport to doctrine.>>>The truth often is a non-viable object of integrity, and perhaps some truth cannot be attained. Because the truth is immutable, sometimes unreachable, only understanding can be expected. For these reasons, understanding is a more noble and humble quest than the truth.>>>>Integrity focuses on understanding and involves four practices: 1) Conduct the work necessary for understanding, without expecting to achieve the truth. 2) Publicly disclose understanding. 3) Behave according to understanding. 4) Promptly employ new methods or perspectives that increase understanding; never close the mind.>>>>Understanding does not come in isolation; integrity requires self-reliance yet focus on the universe, with all its inputs, not just one subset, such as either evidence or imagination. Neither faith nor reason can overthrow integrity. >>>>James Madison and other deists of the 18th century were reading, thinking, and writing in a Protestant environment, and what they accomplished despite the Protestant majority was amazing. However, I think the insufficiency of honesty shows through their accomplishments and failures. Their lack of integrity is evident in slave ownerships, for example.>>>>Nevertheless, they produced a secular constitution.>>>>Everyone since then has left it to us to fulfill the preamble to the US Constitution. I think we can break the 223 year period of neglecting the preamble.

10) Comment by Triple - 08/12/2012

B.K.R. ? Great letter!

11) Comment by Triple - 08/12/2012

InPVille, undeniable influence on the document. Well said. Writings of the founders are cherry picked to support opinions, but to deny the founders were influenced by the knowledge of a Judeo-Christian God is disingenuous. "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God". My pick of the day.

12) Comment by InPVille - 08/12/2012

Another thought on Mr. Beaver's ideas on freedom and justice. How can you demonstrate that your secular view of freedom , justice, and etc. aren't ultimately grounded in concepts borrowed from theological sources and just slipped in through the side door when no one was looking? Theological concepts on the meaning of the words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution are spread over the body of the document and our society in general like icing on a cake.

13) Comment by Triple - 07/12/2012

@prbeav, Good Luck with your endeavor to inspire, certainly noble. On the other hand I jumped in to critique your delivery, your interaction, not the substance. Less noble I know but more fun. No crying in baseball, no thin skin in posting. Partially pulling for your success, I could use the two days.

14) Comment by prbeav - 07/12/2012

ScotB, maybe you'd be less unimpressed with Abraham Lincoln's way of saying it: "I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it" April 4, 1864 letter to Albert G. Hodges.

15) Comment by ScotB - 06/12/2012

When I see God Delusion and chimeras in the same sentence, I can know before reading who the letter writer is it is a elitist, liberal ideologue living in a theoretical world. And when I get to the bottom, bingo!!! Social work professor. Social justice seeker emeritus. Good grief!!!

16) Comment by prbeav - 06/12/2012

triple, I asked, "Is freedom all that matters?" You responded, "Yes as enumerated in the constitution.>>>>In the constitution, five freedoms are listed in Amendment I, but "freedom" appears only once. Amendments V and XIV address life, liberty, and property. The preamble cites Liberty two ways: "to ourselves and our Posterity." Thus, "freedom" appears once and "liberty" appears three times or four.>>>>Most citizens would say they are of We the People. However, the preamble defines the term as United States people who want seven goals: Union, Justice, domestic Tranquility, common defense, general Welfare, and Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. We the People then prescribe the laws and institutions that would fulfill the preamble.>>>>People who are not committed to the preamble's goals suffer the law. For example, child abusers find themselves in jail. Murderers risk life.>>>>Then, 1787, liberty from England had been won, and perhaps that explains the order of stated goals.>>>>I have no desire for unity: I want each person to live in peace according to their personal inspiration and motivation. Therefore, I lobby (in solitude) to change "Union" to "integrity.>>>>I perceive that the preamble could give Americans a means of reaching agreement on how to proceed at this crossroads in 223 years of neglecting the preamble for the sake of "freedom" and the influence of God, which is oppressive and unnatural.>>>>Patrick Henry is famous for "Give me liberty or give me death," in exciting Americans to face war against England. That liberty is won. Henry is not so famous for bidding in 1788 to revise "We the People" to "We the States." His bid failed, but so far, the people have not decided to fulfill the preamble. That liberty remains to be claimed by the people.>>>>I am writing to inspire people to consider the preamble.

17) Comment by prbeav - 06/12/2012

InPVille, revolutions start with a thought. The thoughts I have expressed are inadequate to produce the revolution America needs to accomplish: establishment of governance by the governed.>>>>It is clear, after 223 years of appeal to the influence of God, America's great promise is failing.>>>>Only plain, honest dialogue such as we have shared can produce the needed idea.>>>>I have faith in the people and in the preamble, but revolutions take time. It seems to me the best we could hope for within my lifetime, is national attention to US Constitution Day that exceeds the attention to Independence Day; for example, a two-day national holiday with focus not on God's influence but on the people's commitment to the preamble. People like you can produce the thought that can make it happen.>>>>I hope to live well to age 121, and hope to see just this small part of the vision--a start.

18) Comment by InPVille - 06/12/2012

@prbeav: I can't see "that the evidence is ripe for Americans to convert to We the People of the United States" as you've envisioned it. Hopefully we will both live long enough to see whether either of us has a thumb on what the future has in store.

19) Comment by prbeav - 06/12/2012

InPVille, I appreciate your opposing points for their own sake, and because they help to clarify the revolutionary approach I propose.>>>>My letter to the editor was limited to 450 words, so I had to chose issues to omit. One I chose to omit is that in the years between the Declaration of Independence, the patriots who were leading, particularly Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and many others, saw the need and had the background to create a unique form of government. Their vision was breaking the molds of human nature you write about.>>>>Elements of the uniqueness started with governance by the governed. Of necessity, if a nation will have governance by the governed, it cannot have governance by God, since the concept of God differs from person to person within a society, from believer to believer in a religion, and from clergy to clergy within a sect. Therefore, the stated purpose in forming the nation had to list the common, secular goals that are shared by all individuals, whether the realize it or not.>>>>There have always been people who for one reason or another do the noble work to understand nature, to the best of their abilities. Disadvantaged are those who do not use their brief lives continuously improving their understanding. Understanding begets noble behavior. Therefore, the nation must have a monopoly on force and employ that force to maintain justice.>>>>The leaders who ratified the preamble to the US Constitution knew the goals stated therein had integrity and had faith that in time the Protestant Christian majority of the people would embrace it. So far, America has been led by the divisive slogan, “God bless America.”>>>>The evidence is ripe for Americans to convert to We the People of the United States.>>>>I hope this helps. nimby, some studies suggest that as much as 20% of Americans are involved in child abuse.

20) Comment by nimby? - 06/12/2012

we could speak of breaking anther cycle that has gone on for generations . this would call for mothers and fathers to actually be parents rather than ignoring their offspring , casting them to the streets ...

21) Comment by InPVille - 06/12/2012

@prbeav: In the second paragraph of your letter you wrote: "But God’s influence divides people. Even the best of friends debate God’s influence, often never discovering that each person defines “God” differently. People must look beyond God’s influence and focus on shared goals, such as justice. To achieve justice, people assume responsibility to each other." In the eighth paragraph of your letter you wrote: "The influence of God is predicated on the assertion that humans will not choose ethical behavior. However, most people want to behave so that they can live in freedom. Religions offer believers comfort in an uncertain world, but justice offers everyone freedom to live without civic harm." To my mind the ideas in the second quote are basically the same thing wadep66 wrote in the second comment to your letter: "People are born with a "moral compass" and know right from wrong." Now you are saying that I am spreading falsehoods about what you advocate. I don't think so. First off, those who believe in God would take issue with you that their belief in a deity keeps them from wanting justice, peacefulness, defense, prosperity, and, liberty. To state another way a point I have been trying to make; you have the cart before the horse. It is not the influence of the idea of a deity which prevents there from being better adherence to the principles of justice, peacefulness, defense, prosperity, and, liberty it is the weaknesses of human nature. The only way I can see to remove the influence of a deity from impacting efforts to achieve justice, peacefulness, defense, prosperity, and, liberty is to remove the deity from the minds of human beings. Also getting the population to agree how to best achieve justice, peacefulness, defense, prosperity, and, liberty and even to agree on the definitions of those words will be a bit of a problem. Going back to the idea of choosing ethical behavior, I don't believe that ethical behavior or a moral compass is something that a human being is born with. Individuals acquire their views on the subject from their social experiences during their lifetime. Concepts of a deity are only a part of what makes up a culture. Even if there were no concept of a deity, the remaining cultural differences would lead to divisions. If you want to have a society where there is agreement as to what constitutes justice, peacefulness, defense, prosperity, and, liberty, I believe you need the mores of the society to be strong enough to "grease the skids" for lack of a better word for it. Modern society unfortunately is changing faster than mores can develop. Part of these changes are the result of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. Prior to that act, immigration policy favored Europeans who were culturally similar to the existing citizenry. Since the passage of the act and with open borders to the south of our nation, the number of immigrants from the Third World has seen a marked increase and many of those who come into the country are in need of government assistance, which was formerly infrequently the case. At least once immigration the our country is basically put on hold while those who had immigrated to the country became acculturated. Then their are the myriad of other social activist iniatives such as the U.N. wanting to get huge sums of monies from Western Nations to spend on programs to third world nations, or in a quixotic effort to prevent climate change and achieve "climate justice", monies that could be used to solve problems in the U.S. of A. -[**]- What do I advocate? Why justice, peacefulness, defense, prosperity, and, liberty of course. I just don't think that the world works that way or that we could agree on how to accomplish it if there were. What history and life experience has taught me can be summarized by a couple of quotes: "As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man. There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire." —Rudyard Kipling - - - - "Every civilization carries the seeds of its own destruction, and the same cycle shows in them all. The Republic is born, flourishes, decays into plutocracy, and is captured by the shoemaker whom the mercenaries and millionaires make into a king. The people invent their oppressors, and the oppressors serve the function for which they are invented." - Mark Twain IMO the Republic has seen its birth and its period of flourishing and now we, and the western world in general, are in the decay part of the cycle. Cultural change will outpace your efforts to achieve the maturation of American parents to naturally evolve toward non-prejudicial child rearing. Then there are any number of future events which no one could predict both natural, economic and other man made which could and would limit or make impossible the progress in the project you propose. . .

22) Comment by Triple - 06/12/2012

@prbeav, Your ideas are certainly noble and InPVille does not need my defense, however, I chose to get in the mix after your condescending response.  Your written word in the first post betrays you, and you could have responded with a civil clarification and discourse could have ensued benefitting all.  You initially suggested that we could break the chain of prejudices in "our generation" in your last post, you now suggest several generations will be needed.  To suggest I am misguided or InPVille is delusional, does not foster civil dialogue and it is possible our condition is a result of your first post, which you, yourself now refute.  To answer - no, no and yes as enumerated in the constitution.

23) Comment by prbeav - 05/12/2012

Triple, you are wrong to think I advocate judging parents. To misguide yourself, you are picking statements you think support your idea. You ignore, for example, "I advocate appreciation for every person starting from infancy. I advocate understanding that each person is on a path from total ignorance toward their ultimate comprehension.">>>> I advocate turning the nation's attention from freedom to justice as the path to freedom.>>>>I advocate promoting the preamble to the US Constitution as a national practice. For example, create a two-day national holiday to celebrate and renew commitment to the preamble and the Articles of the US Constitution that should fulfill the preamble. Benefit from the understanding the people would gain from such annual work to fulfill We the People.>>>>Accept that this country has freedom of religion for every citizen and stop imposing theism on the people.>>>>Emphasize psychological maturity above chronological maturity.>>>>After a few generations of such national effort, I think the majority of American parents would naturally evolve toward non-prejudicial child rearing--would on their own break the chain.>>>>I dread force either applied to me or from me.>>>>Thank you for the chance to address your concern.>>>>Do you oppose the preamble to the US Constitution? Do you oppose justice? Is freedom all that matters?

24) Comment by Triple - 05/12/2012

@prbeav, "Too many parents traditionally use their children to preserve prejudices. The age-old practice of passing on prejudices from generation to generation must be broken", sounds to me you are advocating children should be sheltered from parents if those parents have prejudices.  I believe InPville has simply interpreted your statement as a social construct which will determine which parents are fit and those that are not.  Interceding in the parent / child relationship based on perceived prejudices reeks of tyranny.  The type of tyranny which would result in ultimate social control.  InPville did not report falsely on your advocacy, it is in print for all to read or did you not express yourself accurately?  I guess for some, "You have freedom when you're easy in your harness".

25) Comment by Whatchange - 05/12/2012

I'm just waiting for ET to come home.

26) Comment by nimby? - 05/12/2012

observations from the tower .

27) Comment by prbeav - 05/12/2012

InPville, It seems to me you'd make a better argument by stating what you advocate rather than report falsehoods about what I advocate.>>>>Your field of service may seem more appropriate for this discussion, but don't under estimate the social challenges of thirty-five years service as a chemical engineer.>>>>Speaking for myself, whether you agree with my view of what I think or not, I advocate social support for justice as a requisite for freedom.>>>>I advocate appreciation for every person starting from infancy. I advocate understanding that each person is on a path from total ignorance toward their ultimate comprehension (the best they can achieve with their natural abilities during their short lifetime) of the evolutionary accomplishments of the total human experience--perhaps over a trillion man-years of accumulated experience.>>>> I advocate society encouraging yet staying out of each person's way so that they can discover their own excellence and goodness. Emphasize understanding rather than chronological age as a measure of adulthood. Yet appreciate each person as they are and where they are on their path toward understanding.>>>>Regarding social justice and my personal effort to fulfill the preamble to the US Constitution, I quote John Adams: "I must judge for myself, but how can I judge, how can any [person] judge, unless [his/her] mind has been opened by reading.">>>>What you say about me pales before reality and is a figment of your own delusion.>>>>I am very interested in what you advocate on your own, because I think there is huge value in the experiences you have had and your willingness to share them.

28) Comment by InPVille - 05/12/2012

The traits of the human character are too flawed a vessel to grant any serious hope that ridding God/god/gods from every mind would result in any marked improvement in the state of the nation or the world. Our best hope for our nation is for no group within the nation to have sufficient power to force their agenda on the rest. Ultimate social control would be required to achieve what Mr. Bearver advocates. Ultimate social control would result in a society with little or no individual freedom.

29) Comment by DMJ - 05/12/2012

Here, here....I think

30) Comment by [e-mail] - 05/12/2012

A fool by any other name would be as obtuse.

31) Comment by prbeav - 05/12/2012

Thank you Brij, for a brilliant letter. I especially like "God, please help save your children from themselves.">>>>If person-hood is "at the cross roads of freedom," the positive branch requires recognition that children's minds must not be forced into traditional delusions.>>>>The child's quest for understanding must be nourished and encouraged. Too many parents traditionally use their children to preserve prejudices. The age-old practice of passing on prejudices from generation to generation must be broken. Our generation has the opportunity to stop the chaos.

32) Comment by bourbon-soda - 05/12/2012

Does this letter represent an official position of the Church of Sociology and Social Work, or just an opinion of one clergy?

33) Comment by Wallop - 05/12/2012

tradewinns, you should read more American history. The WTC attacks were a result of America's violent and other destructive behaviors in the Middle East. For more than a century America, under the slogan of "creating democracy" has overthrown governments in other countries and installed those that support our economic interests. We used our marines to suppress popular revolts in other countries that were trying to overthrow the oppresive governments we'd installed. Read about Gen. Smedley Butler. He led many of the marine expeditions that abused patriots in other countries. Read about our overthrow of Iran's democratic government in 1951. We are no different than any other "top dog" and, like those of the past, we will fall.

34) Comment by Bighug - 05/12/2012

Amen to that, Brij.

35) Comment by krl777 - 05/12/2012

So tradewinns would have bombed every inch of Afghanistan in a murderous rage, killing all the girls who the Taliban were preventing from going to school.

36) Comment by tradewinns - 04/12/2012

in human history the only time there was "peace" was during the Roman empire. pax romana. even then there was instances of "misbehavior". today the best we can hope for is the "uncivilized" nations contain their killings to their own nation. for instance when the taliban supported 9-11, if i had been the american President, i would have obliterated afganistan with planes and missiles. when there was NOTHING standing, not a building, not a telephone pole, nothing, i would have return the forces to their bases. no foot soldiers needed. a minimum amount of American deaths, if any. yeah, yeah. the survivors would hate us. and we're doing so well now. iraq was and still is a mistake. they did nothing to us to deserve being invaded and replaced with an anti American regime, which they are. our politicians are idiots!

37) Comment by Whatchange - 04/12/2012

Isaiah 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.