The Smiley Smile Message Board

Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. How do people in America feel about them stepping into another pointless conflict?

I really don't want to see us getting into another country's civil war. Two has been plenty, but the UN needs to react to the Syrian government using gas on it's own citizens.

Serious, serious stuff.  Of course.

But, the political-theater of it all -- I find so full of irony, hypocrisy and frankly -- hilarious.  Seeing John blankety-blank Kerry and the rest talk about WMD's.  It's  just too rich.  It's unbelievable.  I'm beyond words.

Pinch me...  Am I on TV??  Is this real??   :lol

This country's military is too worn-out for another conflict.

I was listening to a report on the radio this morning about the chemical bombing of an elementary school in Syria which had me in tears. If we had to go out to war I would rather it would have been for this cause than for oil. But that being said, wars are going to bankrupt the country (while filling the pockets a very few).

I really have no idea which way my support swings. It is a matter that has been weighing very heavily on my own mind (and I'm sure a lot of yours too).

This is why the UN needs to get this resolved. Taking no action or leaving it to the U.S. to handle alone is just absurd. The UN is becoming like the old League of Nations, worthless.

No blood for oil, right... right.   ::)  Cuz Saddam Hussein was not killing and gassing his people.  Right.

Not only that... but going to war for our own national interests is exactly why we should go to war.  And if some a-hole, who gasses his people, is also jeopardizing our supply of oil... than yes -- a good President would ask him to stop or face the consequences.

Jeez.  This stuff isn't that complicated if you can rise above party politics....  :lol

 :smokin

Strange. I don't recall ever saying Saddam wasn't gassing his own people. If anyone is unable to rise above party politics it just might be one presumptuous wee little bean bag.  ;D

Underestimating or worse, disregarding the “complexity” in these situations is EXACTLY what got us into trouble in Iraq.

I say the UN should intervene and do something, not the US.
the US is not the world's police, they have no business in Syria, anyway.
I just hope Syria doesn't become another Iraq or Afghanistan

While I agree with what you say, you do know that the UN really has no army. So, whether the UN goes in or the U.S. alone, the U.S. goes in either way, because we always lead the coalition forces. I am really beginning dislike mankind, we treat each other like sh*t.

Here's the problem:

Syria has experienced years of devastating drought due to Earth Changes. The agriculture collapsed--crop failures and livestock dropped dead in the fields--and millions of farmers fled to the cities, where they demanded relief from the government. The regime, however, was not on good negotiating terms with the international community; there were banksters and other multination business interests that sought to gain a footing in Syria's trade and exports but had thus far been resisted. So, the regime did not find a sympathetic audience, and instead of sending bread, the international community sent weapons to the "rebels" -- better to have the people overthrow their own government than do it with an outside force. And, so the situation was allowed to fester, and other neighboring interests did their part to play both sides against each other, and it was FRANCE that supplied the chemical weapons, which were not necessarily used by the regime even if it was made to look like it (false flag) so that NATO could deliver the death-blow and then new "local" government would have legitimacy among the people even if it answered and bowed to outside interests. Typical imperialist power-play.

Today on NPR, the host slipped up...calling "Assad..."Saddam."

My assumption, btw, is that President Obama knows it's a false-flag and doesn't want to get involved. So, he speaks out against it, then throws the decision to Congress, who will likely vote against a military strike. Therefore, he gets to look concerned as a huminatarian, but he doesn't have to take responsibility for not getting involved.

I don't disagree.

But you said something quite interesting.  False-flag.  What exactly did you mean by that?   :tiptoe

False-flag = when one group stages an event and makes it look like the responsibility of another group.

This morning I read in the international news that the rebels were aided in gaining chemical weapons by Saudi Arabians, and that their mishandling of the material is what led to the deaths we've seen attributed to Assad.

That's what I thought you meant.  :-D

There's little value in gassing one's own people, while one is struggling to maintain control of power.  I would assume anyway.

But if Obama knew this... why do you think he set the "Red Line" that he's now saying he didn't set?   :-X

Care to cite the source for this?

It's a civil war so therefore the U.S. should just stay out of it, but, of course...

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http:/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

In 1982 Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad, directed a massacre against his own people in Hama, which resulted in the deaths of 20,000 - 40,000 Syrians.  So, it would appear that the current ruler of Syria is happy to commit any atrocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

I do agree that it should be the other Arab nations who should rise up and tell Assad to get lost.  We are looking at another Bosnia.  If the other Arab countries fail to act, NATO will have to step in.

It appears the Daily Mail deleted this article, so they are not standing by the allegation.

It's certainly suitable for "Faux News" though.  Sorry, with respect, I call "BS" on this.

Find a reputable article, from a reputable news agency that stands by its sources, and then get back to me, hmmm?  Otherwise you are just wasting my time.

No one's making this up Heysaboda.  This is the link I had.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542

I'm not saying it's true, either.  Nor do I care to defend Assad.  But it is compelling, and certainly makes sense.  There's nothing for Assad to gain at this moment by doing this.  But this False Flag thing has happened before (Serbs/1995) -- it's what these Islamo NAZIs do.  They blow-up innocent people all the time.  It's their calling card.

AP: "Rebels" Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack
http://www.globalresearch.ca/jabhat-al-nusra-rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/5347485

Here's an hour-long interview with a Princeton-trained geopolitical analyst:
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/09/RIR-130902.php

In sum, Syria is under assault by Saudi Arabia-U.S.-NATO because of an oil pipeline deal with Iran-Russia-China.
The terrorists posing as rebels mishandled the chemical weapons given to them, giving an excuse for military action (Pentagon-CIA-State Dept) on behalf of multinational corporate interests that also control the mainstream-media brands. Do not expect the truth from them.

To the above I would add, Syrian agriculture collapsed after several years of drought and Earth Changes, and mismanagement of resources contributed to civic disorder:
http://www.alternet.org/syria

May peace and justice prevail.



JAI SRI RAMAKRISHNA!

"Probes from Khan al-Assal show chemicals used in the March 19 attack did not belong to standard Syrian army ammunition, and that the shell carrying the substance was similar to those made by a rebel fighter group, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated."

http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/

The Obamabots need to just swallow their pride and admit that they love war now that their messiah is in office.

Russia says it's compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack

Russia says it has compiled a 100-page report detailing what it says is evidence that Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year.

In a statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website late Wednesday. Russia said the report had been delivered to the United Nations in July and includes detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.UiirysZ4w_g

Political analyst time.  Obama's been a total loser on Syria.  Worse than the Zimmerman/Trayvon case.  This is "WORLD-STAGE" stuff.  Big boy stuff.  Not phony NBC/Al Sharpton fluff.

First, he draws a red-line (Cowboy diplomacy?).  Then he says "Uhh I didn't draw a redline, the world did" or whatever.  (Some Cowboy).  He can't even get the Brits to join him.  He can't even get himself to join himself!!

Then he says:  "My credibility is not on the line.  Uhhh... yours is!  The World's is!  Uhhh... CONGRESS' is!"  wTF?  So that's what this is about?  You?  Call a life line man.  Didn't he claim Bush damaged our reputation "abroad?"  What's this then?  Improving it?  How's your coalition?  Is this the "Arab Spring?"

Just put the little rich boy, John F. Kerry back on the mic.   :lol

(http://www.blackfive.net/.a/6a00d8341bfadb53ef0192aca477b5970d-500wi)

"Reporting for Duty, sir!!"

Is it possible that the problem of Syria could be solved by the commentators at Smiley Smile Dot Net?  LOL

You never know!

Sure, we'd "kill 'em" with LAUGHING GAS.


(http://cdn.marketplaceimages.windowsphone.com/v8/images/62d95440-e830-459a-a864-7ab19a0d076e?imageType=ws_icon_large)


;-)


JAI SHRI RAMAKRISHNA

The lefties who support Obama just want to start World War III. No big deal, right? I mean, they'll have "free health care", peace, harmony, unicorns and fucking leprechauns, right?

 :smokin

Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō

Every Obama supporter I know are angry at him about it, not supportive at all.

As they should be. But this is no big surprise. They all claimed they voted for him because Romney would start a war in the Middle East. Now Obama has come back to bite them in the ass. Not like there was any real difference between Obama and Romney short of their political parties...but hey.

It's madness. Every inch closer Obama and his admin. brings us to Syria makes me want to punch a hole through something.

Well...... I happen to be an Obama supporter and I am not angry at him.

If he wants to bomb Assad's palace into smithereens and blow up a bunch of Syrian command and control, I'm good wid dat.... etc....

World War III didn't start when Bush invaded Iraq, so I doubt it will start now.

Because Romney only got "47%"  LOL

I can see you haven't thought this through.

What, in your opinion, happens once we depose him?

If you want Assad to be put down, maybe YOU should go over and make that happen.

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/photo/9695039.cms)

The Lotus Sutra was given as the final teaching by a Master to a disciple after a long initiation.
As a bodhisattva ideal, Fameseeker Maitreya nurtures a golden age of virtue, unified society, and victory of Truth.
He embodies the creative impulse aiming for justice and peace.

(http://i.qkme.me/3pmnii.jpg)

Of course, it could be Total Chaos!  No doubt about that.  Similar to Iraq 2006 perhaps.

I guess ideally, Syria could be partitioned in half: half run by a chemical weapons-using maniac, the other half run by... ?

So, Assad uses chemical weapons and YOU reward him by leaving him alone??

Rather, the rebels use chemical weapons and YOU reward them by putting them in power after Assad is taken out. woohoo

There is absolutely zero proof that Assad used chemical weapons and plenty of evidence to back it up. You think he's stupid? The last thing he needs is outside interference in a civil war.

Seriously, just for comparison sake, do people think the USA and NATO were wrong to intervene in Bosnia in 1995?

And, is Assad stupid?

Like father like son:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

To ask "is Assad stupid" is a cop out and a non sequitur .  Makes no sense.  Like any of us really know what is going on in the mind of a dictator.  Of course he's not STUPID but he is a DICTATOR.

Rather ask:

Why didn't Saddam capitulate prior to the USA invasion, which he knew he'd lose.  Hmmm?

There Is Your Answer, Grasshopper!   :hat

U.S. intervention in Bosnia and FR Yugoslavia was just as wrong. As it was in Afghanistan and Iraq.

True to an extent, but most "Democrats" "Liberals" I know are completely against this and are slamming Obama every which way. This is a bit unique since so many Repubs would have supported Bush if he proposed to bomb their own house.... And it is quite nice and entertaining watching all the right wingers pretending that being against bombing ANYTHING/ANYWHERE doesn't hurt their brains..... But again, it is nice seeing it for a change.

And yeah, I love seeing the true colors of all these Obamatards who are still supporting the man coming out.

It's all partisanism. The left were burning effigies of Bush when he was president just like the right burns effigies of Obama now. That's all it is. Partisanism.

Yep! But hopefully more and more people will see it for what it is now.

I'd suggest, Mr. Pinder, that in reality the situation is not all "black vs. white" or "yes vs. no", and no pun intended.  The devil is in the details, and probably ANYTHING we do (even NOTHING) will have a bad result.

Seriously, to me, the relevant analogy is Bosnia, not Iraq.

Being an Obamatard, as you disrespectfully term me, if Reagan has called for bombing of Iraq because Saddam chemically bombed Halabja (1988), then yeah, I'd have supported that even though I was and am anti-Reagan.

To me, dictators shouldn't be allowed to get away with use of chemical weapons.  Just sayin'.

Granted, as others have said, that Obama's proposed action could make a Chaotic situation More Chaotic.  What should we do, just stand around and wee in our pants?

Dictators who use chemical weapons or commit genocide need to be answered back.  You obviously disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuzla_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prijedor_massacre

I'd agree if the last 50+ years of US Foreign Policy didn't make us complete hypocrites. It's a little detail I make the choice not to ignore.

 If Obama wants to bomb something, he should bomb Monsanto.....

heh heh have to say you have a good point!

Our karma is already F'd up enough. Do nothing is exactly what I propose.

 I have yet to hear Kerry or Obama speak of U.S. troops on the groundor of an occupying force. There will be limiting parameters as opposed to the vast nation building boondoggle in Iraq. Having said that, there aren't any "good" options, hopefully just some less bad than others.

Or... There never was going to be an American attack on Syria to help the "rebels" - rebels who execute unarmed Syrian prisoners like taking out the garbage.

Maybe Obama's remark was the point:  "uhhh no... It's Congress' who's on the line."

The house cant possibly ok an attack based on the evidence. And they haven't.  The Brits ain't on board. No ones on board.  It's ridiculous.

Maybe just maybe Obama wants you to think that the Republicans didn't do the right thing because they're just being "political" and "partisan."  Just like how they, the Demorats are partisan and political. Maybe, right?  And that the Republicans are just as bad?  If i was a criminal I'd like for the people to think the cops are just as bad as me. Just saying.

Or what if North Korea decided to bomb Monsanto and take out Obama because he's "poisoning his own people"?

Or what if some other country blew up the 405 freeway in LA because so many crazy drivers kill themselves and others on it each day presenting a global threat because some of these drivers might visit other nations and rent cars and go ballistic of their freeways?

If you take that track of thought, it will never end.....

"At the end of the day, we'll have to leave it there...."  >:D

Obama Claims He’d Be Treated Better In Europe, Whines About “Names I’m Called” In America

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-claims-hed-treated-better-europe-whines-names-im-called-america/

Oh boo fucking hoo, you warmongering tyrant. At least your "illustrious" predecessor took it in stride.

I'd comment but my bartender limits me to 3 Sandbox posts a day!!!   8)

 :violin

Yep.  This is from a "President" who hasn't been able to man-up on anything yet.  He whines and blames his predecessor for EVERYTHING.  He whines and blames America , God, guns, religion... he whines and blames the Republicans for not going along with him and for not being able to get anything done.

He blames a YouTube video for his failure to secure our Ambassador in Libya.   :-\  What a putz.

Is anyone on this board SURPRISED to hear him whine about something like this?  No.  He's a puzzy.  Add it to the list.  He's a total embarrassment.  Whether you agree with him or not (and very few Americans do agree with Obama's positions, yet they vote for him, I know, I know) -- no one is surprised.

You know what would be surprising?  If he took responsibility for something.  Anything.  That would be surprising.

I hold out hope.  One day, he will MAN-UP.  I have hope.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg/399px-Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg)

Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/?ref=auto

 >:D

Yeah, no kidding!  But we can't even get them to live under their OWN RULES, like Social Security, Obamacare.  Good luck getting them to ever eat their own sh-t.

It should be a One Way Ticket too!!

 >:D

Who thinks it's okay to kill little kids with poison gas?  Almost no one.

Who thinks it's okay to stand by while this is being done?  Lots of people apparently.

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.  Heard that one before?

?

Who here feels responsible to feed another man's family while his own family is starving?

Hands? Anyone?

.

While it's hard to think about what the consequences of the strike may be, I think the reasons some people give for why it shouldn't happen are the wrong reasons.  The US shouldn't intervene because they're not already involved with Syria?  By that logic, the US also never should have been involved in World War II because we were never occupied by Germany.  While I worry about the innocent lives that may be lost in this mission, I think we absolutely have a moral obligation to intervene.

On whose side?

The Al Queda linked Syrian rebels backed by Saudi Arabia or the Assad regime backed by Russia and Iran?

You must be some greedy one percenter. The Obamadrones must think you're a racist!

Then you go over and fight evil. We won't stop you. It's easy to be a chickenhawk when you're not the one doing the fighting. :)

What do you think should happen?  Do you think the US should ignore Syria altogether?  I think that would be even worse.

Ahem... there was this little question I asked you....

Look at this way, its a pity both sides can't lose. (Syria/Iran Vs. Al Qaeda)

Honestly, I still don't think it's clear enough who's responsible and I think the NSA needs to figure that out before any sort of attack is carried out, at least I hope they wait until they're sure.  Let me be clear, I am not a huge supporter of this, I've been doing a lot of research and I still can't figure out what to think about all of this, I'm just saying that I believe the US should be involved at all if anything.  Anything beyond that I don't think is for me to say.

It's a civil war; let them figure it out.

Germany declared war on the US several days after the Japanese attacked what they thought was a majority of the US naval fleet at Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7 1941. The US response to this was specific to Japan and a reaction to their attack. The US-Germany tensions were high leading up to this, as the US Navy was actively responding to German U-Boat attacks on various US ships and shipping lanes and also showing soft support of the European countries on which Germany had declared war, but there was no outright declaration of war by the US on Germany, nor a plan to involve US forces directly in Europe. Pearl Harbor was considered an act of war by Japan, and there was an implicit agreement between Hitler and the Japanese leadership that if Japan went to war, Germany would be with them. Hence, the Japanese attack on Hawaii was followed days later by a declaration of war on the US from Germany, per their agreement.

Japan attacked the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, followed by Germany declaring war on the US. Important to note that if a reference to WW2 is going to be made.

If I were Prez...I'd be manipulating both sides, to get what's best for my country.  Which may or may not be anything.  I suspect it would be my country's safety and security, the steady flow of food, fuel and resources and commerce from the region (if applicable), and to assist any allies, if needed.

Other than that, they can have their civil war.

The use of chemical weapons is a violation of the world's "play nice" rules, so it slightly complicates things.  It may risk our credibility (if any agreements suggest we intervene), otherwise who's gonna stop'em?

If force is required from my country -- I prefer "excessive use of."  I like to be done as soon as possible -- and to provide a sure, ringing tone of "do not f-cks with me and mine!" That is, if anyone is f-cksing with me and mine, of course.  This overwhelming use of force (whenever force is required) helps ensure that my country will have an even bigger voice next time -- thus likely avoiding the need to even use ANY force.

This Administration, apparently, thinks much differently...
Kerry: We're Talking About An "Unbelievably Small" Effort In Syria
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/09/kerry_were_talking_about_an_unbelievably_small_effort_in_syria.html


(http://images.politico.com/global/2013/09/09/130909_kerry_comments_ap_328.jpg)

I think it's weird that chemical weapons are (rightly) viewed as bad but bombing cities into dust is considered OK. I mean, dead is dead.

Dead is dead, true. But I think it has to do with the element of agony involved.

There once was a Vlad named Putin

Who, as Russian ruler, was just put in

Around Siberia he'd lurk

While being a jerk

And in Syria, he’ll put his foot in

If you are condemning them for using gas/chemical weapons, you can't use it against them when you retaliate. Bombs do a much better job on honing in on specific sites. At lease you can be reasonably sure of hitting the proper target.

Hopefully, this all gets cleared up before bombing even becomes an option.

I am betting that this gets a tasty send up by SNL!  Except they need John Cleese to play Kerry!

Yeah, I hear ya!

You know... there are some people (I suppose they would be labeled "on the right" to friends of Obama) who are saying this is all "by design."  Obama is "by design" using instances like Syria to de-value, or shrink America's stature around the world.  To cut us down here at home, as well.  Shrink us.  Economically, politically.  It's not fair that we're a "super-power."

I say... YES.  Absolutely.  It's either that or the man is loser, dumby-moron.  Which is silly.  This is what the American Left believes... this is what they yell and scream at their rallies.  They don't like a big tuff America.  They don't like business.  They don't like people getting rich.  They have their reasons... I know... but the results, guys.  The results.

I mean, 60 million unemployed?  "Unbelievabley small" attacks?  This stuff is easy to fix.  It's easy to make this country rock n' roll.  Cut regulation, taxes, control the border, stop wasting trillions, make this place "The Place" to do business.

Obama's Successful Foreign Failure
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323595004579062811443943666.html

Collapse of American Influence Recalls Disintegration of Soviet Union, Fall of France
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/collapse-of-american-power-recalls-dis/88400/

So if I vote you for President next election, will you fix all of these things?  You seem to think it's easy enough.

Syria vows to give up chemical weapons, no deal yet at U.N.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-sees-possible-breakthrough-syria-weapons-proposal-010203859.html

Uh.............. these would be the ones that Assad just denied he had LOL

Did he deny having them?i]them? I only recall that he denied having used them.

I guarantee it.

This is good news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/syrian-chemical-arsenal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The solution isn't more busy-ness, but less.

Until the Protestants made work a virtue and capitalists promoted the growth of the financial sector for its own sake as signs of a healthy economy, work was considered a curse, and people only did what needed to be done for material security. Work in the modern world is no longer authentic work. The point of the industrial revolution was to free people of the labor necessary to produce the necessities of life so that people could enjoy more leisure (and, presumably, the rewards of leisure, like artistic and intellectual achievement). Unfortunately, that result has not come to fruition, and more of us are wage slaves now and landless peasants who are in worse conditions than our ancestors, though we wouldn't admit it because we are conditioned to believe that our technology, our gaudy toys, and our late appearance in time makes us the most evolved of the digestive tracts that have appeared on the face of the Earth rather than the primitive tribe of the Future.

That's a very "religious" opinion Prabhuji.   :-D  I think it has some merit.  The ole' "are we any happy nowadays with our electronic gizmos and instant messaging?  The Google and the rest?"

I've thought it.  I'm one who loves old movies and music, precisely to remind myself of those simpler times.  But I don't know.  Am I one to pass judgement on our times?  Or on "our place in the digestive tract" as you put it?

I don't know.  There's some amazing things that we've done, collectively, as a society that could only have come about as we've demanded more from ourselves and the world around us.  Technology is an amazing thing.  A curse, yes.

The time with which we live.  And the parents we're given.  Who the flunk knows.  I accept things as they are ...and call bullsh-t on things that have been a disaster.  But I'm not sure being pro-business is a disaster.  I do believe it has contributed to the rise of the human condition (whatever that means).  And the old way... the rulers and the serfs... well, those ways seem to be the rampant alternative, shall we say?

Human instincts travel in both directions --> wanting more ---> and to be ruled.  I prefer to direct these within known parameters... wanting more = work for it.  To be ruled = well, that's your own personal conquest and not to be left to the social planners with diplomas -- nor to the dictators, who differ only slightly regarding their levels of honesty.

It's not religious so much as it is pessimistic and misanthropic, but (truth be told), that's only a pose and a show. I have great love of humanity and its potential. I'm also aware that history moves in cycles, with each new turn of the spiral bringing new complications to the old problems which are never adequately resolved, and that the life of the species goes through periods of rise and fall, and on each subsequent crest of the wave, come new standard-bearers with boons. This too is a good time, if we know what to do with it.

But, the only way forward is if we look very clearly at where we are and how we arrived in this situation of limitations and possibilities; social traditions and attitudes conditioned through generations of propaganda are not natural law. I sometimes think the real reason Mr. Wilson was depressed for so many years was he had a moment of lucidity that revealed to him that he was a privileged boy because he wrote odes to the internal combustion motor and hymns to spark plugs. A world where speed is the greatest virtue--fast food, fast cars, fast talk--is a very boring float at the shallow end of the pool, whereas some of us prefer to swim in the ocean.

Life now is not so different than rulers and serfs. The percentages and the class stratification of society looks consistent, regardless of whether we look ancient Egypt, the Indian caste, medieval feudalism, or American technopoly. As Aldous Huxley said in his last years (I paraphrase), through a superior knowledge of physiology and the manipulation of unconscious psychology, people will be made to love their slavery.

Yeah somewhat pessimistic.  (I do like the allusion to life being a "spiral."  Something I profess myself.)

The one small point I would make -- is your assumption that the human condition, its traditions and attitudes (be it the result of propaganda, corporate advertising or whatever) are somehow not a part of Natural Law.  There's a battle for our soul's attention, no doubt, but war is natural.  And to be influenced by ads and lies are too.  I accept everything -- none of it outside of What Is Natural.

The reason I bring this up is, I see a danger in this leading to an institutional belief that man's influence is somehow inconsistent with Natural Law and not natural itself.  Leading people to believe man is above Natural Law even?  Religiously and spiritually, there's some distinctions there (made in His image) -- but I don't think any of these assertions attempt to mean that we're thus "unnatural beings."  Certainly not Gods.

And, this also applies to the fruits of our labor, desire and creations.  Plastic is natural.  Burning oil is natch'al.  Hamburgers and Hot Rods are too.  Just as are tyrants and serfs.

Natural is the disease/natural is the cure.

I appreciate your distinction, and I agree with you. It is natural for human animals to be greedy, vengeful, and ignorant. It is also natural that humans are not meant to be merely animals, and that the quest for freedom (which is natural) involves transforming the beast into a beauty. Social conditions will either help or hinder that project.

And, so far as being made in the image of God, may I suggest that this statement has been subject to anthropomorphic solipsism? Rather than thinking of God as a bearded guy in the clouds, or a Queen of Heaven, I suggest that a more useful interpretation is to think of "the image of God" as "the PLAY of Spirit" akin to a "DREAM of Life" or "the Theatre of Creation" or some such metaphor.

Nicely said!!

True!

It's a flawed analogy.

The USA is not exactly "starving" now, is it?

"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

 :3d

Oh god. Please don't use quotes from jesus to support the possible actions of a country that has no qualms with using uranium bullets on foreign soil lol.

Well, I realize people may cringe at the Jesus quotes but for the record, I am an atheist who frequently quotes Jesus.  Really.  (lol) And it was in the context of "for evil to triumph good men must do nothing."

I'm an atheist as well, but I dislike when people use his quotes to justify military action (Jesus was a pacifist after all).

But anywho, I get your context now. I wish that our leadership was made up of good men who wanted to do the right thing....but since our leadership only serves its own corporate self interests, I'm wary of any foreign action, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.