Gingrich: John Bolton will be my secretary of state

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roy5 said:
ishii Sorry to break it to you, but when we go to war hate becomes a standard commodity
Click to expand...
. I am a senior who recalls the hatred peddled during WWII. The manner in which ‘Japs’ were depicted was outrageous. The Germans were treated a bit better, but there was this effort to present Germans as Nazis. Were there any ‘good Germans’ became an issue that was hotly debated.

** In any case, if we had gone to war with the USSR many of those people in the concert hall likely would have been killed.** What was it, 60 million who were slaughtered during WWII? I saw the ruins of Cologne and Franfurt, Dusseldorf and Frankford. Tragic. And tragic, of course, in Amsterdam and London, Dresden and Warsaw, Leningrad and Nanking, Tokyo, Saipan and Manila, Hiroshima and Nagasaki - which two cities, incidentally, were the Protestant and Catholic venters in Japan.

** It always puzzles me that many who are quick to advocate and support war - bomb 'em back into the stone age - can also be so fervently anti-abortion.** Think of all the innocent - adults, children, yes babies in the womb - killed in war, including soldiers who become cannon-fodder to slay the enemy. We need to be consistent. If it is a major sin to take innocent life in the womb whatever other factors may prevail, why doesn’t this apply to killing innocent people in war, also?
Code: 
  The older I get the more urgent I feel the need for Christians to consistently seek to treasure and save human life. I have enormous admiration for such groups as the Quakers and Mennonites who try to follow the Sermon on the Mount, so often but ignored by most of us. "Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?" Guess who said that. Luke 6:46.
Liberals are incapable of responding to actual points and instead seem to prefer to merely pontificate in fits of self-righteousness and ad hominem attacks.

Roy5, I will re-post my words since you seem to miss them:

*I deeply resent your implication that the Cold War was fought because we “hated the people”. Far from it. Instead, we hated the evil atheist system called communism that characterized the Soviet Union. Saying we “hate” them was always the standard liberal accusation against those who merely didn’t want to bend over and surrender to the communists. I am glad that freedom won over Soviet communism, and that our leaders didn’t listen to the kind of words and sentiment expressed above. Such words are misguided at best, traitorious at worst. *

Care to actually address my points?

Ishii
 
ishii said:
The point is that liberal Democrat catholics can and do give their vote for a candidate who not only won’t work to rid the bad law, but will actively work to extend and protect the evil law! And now can’t you see why I am baffled by liberal Democrat catholics? Would you agree? Ishii
Click to expand...
I am not what you call a liberal Democrat, and I don’t answer for Catholics who support and condone abortion or for Republicans who support abortion or for any other who support the killing of the innocent in the womb. Nether do I support and condone other mortal sinful behavior such as divorce and remarriage or immoral sexual activity between homosexuals or heterosexual. and the lists go on. So much of it all…all kinds of evil in this world.

Political party’s and Governments are not immune to any of it.
You kid yourself if you believe your political choice is free of any of it. I guess it is part of the human condition to resort to the blame game. What does it do but to make us feel better about our own bad choices and actions/
Dear God, have mercy on us all in your judgment, and forgive us. Peace, Carlan
 
Monte RCMS

** It would take a book to go into the complex causes of WWII**. Certainly one of them was WWI, largely a war between rival empires, after which the Allies dictated bitter terms to Germany. This helped create a major inflation/depression in Germany, which permitted a fanatic like Hitler to rally resentment as well as pride and hope and thereby come to power. Then, of course, came Sept. 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland after a deal with Stalin - etc. Long story.

** In the Pacific, the situation was complex, too.** Japan (our ally in WWI) had been humiliated (especially important in the Far East) by the 5-5-3 quota re naval power. It also resented demands of the USA that Japan get out of China, Indochina, etc. It’s main and often successful slogan was ‘Asia for the Asians’. The British, French, Dutch amd even the Portuguese ruled over much of the Asia, with the US in the Phillippines. We also put an embargo on materials Japan felt it needed. The Japanese military foolishly decided that war with the US was on its way, so the wise move was to demolish the US navy first. It is interesting that the British put Gandhi in jail during WWII and the one truly independent country in Asia - apart from China where Europeans had major concessions - Thailand, was an ally of Japan.

** None of this is to justify the brutal Nazis, the Italian fascists, the Japanese militarists, etc**. It’s simply to illustrate how complicated such matters are. The Finns, Hungarians, Romanians, and many within the USSR - many Ukrainians, Armenians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, etc. - plus many Slovakians, Croatians (and we could go on) sided with the Germans. So, by the way, did certain Irish who detested Britain. Ireland remained neutral throughout the war.

** You may want to read Pat Buchanan on World War II**. I don’t agree with Buchanan entirely, but he does provide insight into how we might have avoided that disastrous conflict and saved most of eastern Europe from 50 years of Communist rule.
Code: 
**John Bolton is the subject of this thread. He is a bellicose advocate of a harsh and belligerent foreign policy.** His temperament is one characteriized by 'black and white'. He seems to have no gift for understanding nuances and complexities and ambiguities. What a disaster for America if a man like him is ever in charge of our State Dept. Then it would likely become our Let's-Go-to-War Dept.
** God bless America, and may the Lord save us from the Bolton mentality**.
 
Hitler invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia because of WWI???

I don’t think so.

Hitler decided he wanted “living space”.

Stalin provided the oil and other resources that Hitler needed.

Stalin provoked the start of WWII, so that he could “pick up the pieces” after the carnage and chaos of a world war. The only thing that stopped Stalin after WWII, was the United States … the Marshall Plan, the intervention into Greece and Italy and France [military and political] … the Berlin Airlift … the response to the North Korean invasion of June 1950 and etc. Read “Freedom Through Vigilance” by Larry Tart and look at the maps therein.

Read also, Tart’s book, “The Price of Vigilance”.

Basically, the United States build-up in the alleged “Cold War” is what thwarted Stalin. … “alleged” because a lot of good men died fighting the Soviets.

There were numerous “proxy wars” … short of all-out nuclear war … in which the United States thwarted the Soviet Union. Read Michael Lind’s book: “Vietnam: the Necessary War” … about how proxy wars were fought.

Japan invaded China and Manchuria … and then found that they were over-extended.

Japan didn’t [and still doesn’t] have any oil. How can a wanna-be naval power pursue those ridiculous ambitions without oil???

The 5-5-3 naval treaty was designed SPECIFICALLY so that Japan would not be able to seize and hold what is now Indonesia, with all those oil fields. Nothing more than that … to stop Japan’s imperialist ambitions by preventing Japan from seizing the Dutch East Indies’ / Indonesia’s oil.

The United States had pursued a policy of disarmament prior to World War II. I will repost what I have already posted … on the small amount of GDP [it used to be called GNP] that the United States was spending on military spending. [And we are starting to approach down to that percentage even now ] … spending too little results in enough obvious weakness that it makes it attractive to attack the United States because we wouldn’t have the force immediately available to fight back. Prior to WWII, the common belief was that the United States was too effete to fight.
 
Roy5 said:
Code: 
**John Bolton is the subject of this thread. He is a bellicose advocate of a harsh and belligerent foreign policy.** His temperament is one characteriized by 'black and white'. He seems to have no gift for understanding nuances and complexities and ambiguities. What a disaster for America if a man like him is ever in charge of our State Dept. Then it would likely become our Let's-Go-to-War Dept.
** God bless America, and may the Lord save us from the Bolton mentality**.
Click to expand...
You still haven’t managed to point out single specific event that supports your view of Bolton.
 
ishii said:
Cmatt, I don’t want you to throw your hands up into the air. But how else can I explain the support of liberal catholics for a party that represents the goals and policies of the secular left which are opposed to the Catholic church, particularly on social issues but also on others? What baffles me is how the liberal catholic (or christian) can treat these crucial social issues like any other issue. Is there anything that the secular leftist leadership of the Democrat party would propose that would have you question your allegiance to them? Or are you ok with all of the bad simply because they fund programs to help the poor? (nevermind that the poor aren’t helped by these programs, but thats a different subject).

I am trying to help you discern the nature of the secular left and its effect on the Democrat party and get you (and anyone else following this thread) to consider re-thinking support for the leftist secular agenda as represented by the modern national Democrat party. The left didn’t control the Democrat party in “the good old days” but they do now. I think liberal catholics can do better than support the goals of the secular left.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here…
Ishii
Click to expand...
Here Ishii, I’ve posted this elsewhere but maybe this will help. I know Estesbob likes to quote a cardinal but the USCCB introduction on Faithful Citizenship clearly states “It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues or direction on how to vote,” and warns against reducing Catholic moral concerns to “one or two matters.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103920.htm

I’m not sure the left has ever been in charge, Ishii, or how long it’s been. But I haven’t seen those considered to be more on the left in Democratic Party circles such as the late Senator Ted Kennedy or Congressman Kucinich, winning any nominations in 1980, 2004, or 2008 when each of them ran for the Democratic Party’s nomination.

And all I was trying to say was since you are still baffled after all that has been presented, as with most political discussions, minds are not easily changed on either side of the aisle. People have their politics and this forum is clearly an instrument of conservative politics. Peace Ishii.
 
Gosh, I don’t have the time to write my particular take on the history of modern Europe. I never said that Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland because of World War I. I said that Hitler came to power in large measure because of the chaos caused in Germany as a result of the Versailles Treaty. Etc. Very complicated!
Code: 
** Another factor, of course, was apportioning parts of Germany - with German majorities - to neighboring countries.** E. g., Sudentenland. That gave Hitler an excuse - plus made the Germans in such areas eager to reunite with their homeland. Look at how so many Austrians even welcomed the Germans when Austria became part of the Greater Deutschland in 1938. Etc.

 **No, I'm not going to continue this as it can go on forever. Historians disagree, of course. History is like religion and politics - all sorts of interpretations and viewpoints.**. Look at the different perpsectives on the Civil War. My maternal great-grandfather fought in that war and there was never any question who was at fault! And that, by the way, meant you had to vote Republican - according to his son, my Grandpa! Talk to someone white from Georgia or Alabama and you might get a totally different take. 

** I doubt if it can be said that Stalin initiated World War II. He was quite unprepared in June 1941 when Germany attacked.** The Soviet had huge areas devastated and as many as 20,000,000 killed. Stalin benefited after the war because of Yalta, etc. Yes, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, NATO, the Berlin Airlift all were important.(I was in Berlin during the airlift.) Many GOPers, incidentally, fought some of these policies. Bob Taft was among them. He led the fight against NATO, as I recall. The GOP also had led the fight against preparedness in the US before Pearl Harbor. That party was the backbone of isolationalism in our country. I don't hold that against the GOP today as it wanted to avoid involvement in the war. Here again a long domestic story which we cannot cover here. One of the strongest voices against entanglements, of course, was Fr. Coughlin, who argued that Jews plus certain Anglophiles were trying to push us into war. 

  **This thread, however,  is about John Bolton and what a foolish move by Gingrich to indicate that he would appoint him Secretary of State.** He didn't have to say that so far in advance, and it certainly alienates me completely. Bolton is thoroughly unqualified for that job unless we're itching to get into another war or two or three.
** God bless (and save) America!**
 
CMatt25 said:
Here Ishii, I’ve posted this elsewhere but maybe this will help. I know Estesbob likes to quote a cardinal but the USCCB introduction on Faithful Citizenship clearly states “It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues or direction on how to vote,” and warns against reducing Catholic moral concerns to “one or two matters.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103920.htm
Click to expand...
Many individual Bishops have tried to address the confusion of the USCCB Faithful and Citizenship document. Bishop Robert Vasa has said voting for a pro-abortion candidate is never justified when the opponent is pro life.

Bishop Vasa has said,

“When we were working on the document ‘Faithful Citizenship’, and the issue of whether or not a person’s adamant pro-abortion position was a disqualifying condition, the general sense was ‘yes that is a disqualifying condition’.”

“The conditions under which an individual may be able to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would apply only if all the candidates are equally pro-abortion.”

He added: “And then you begin to screen for the other issues and make a conscientious decision to vote for this pro-abortion candidate because his positions on these other issues are more in keeping with good Catholic values." In that case, he said, "It doesn’t mean that you in any way support or endorse a pro-abortion position but you take a look in that context at the lesser of two evils.”

Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell insisted there are no “‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.”
 
CMatt25 said:
Here Ishii, I’ve posted this elsewhere but maybe this will help. I know Estesbob likes to quote a cardinal but the USCCB introduction on Faithful Citizenship clearly states “It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues or direction on how to vote,” and warns against reducing Catholic moral concerns to “one or two matters.”
Click to expand...
The problem with that document, Cmatt, is that it is too easily perceived by liberal catholics as giving permission to vote for pro-abortion candidates because you agree with them on everything else - i.e., to not vote for the candidate because they support abortion rights would mean you are “reducing moral concerns to one or two issues.” So, have at it. Vote for the candidates who want to keep the slaughter going. I asked you in a previous post is there any single issue one of your liberal candidates could support that would cause you to vote against them? I think you’re using the USCCB introduction to let you off the hook. The bishops who worded that document (if they in fact did the writing) are guilty of adding to confusion among catholics - just like the bishops who invite pro-abortion catholics to speak at archdiocesan events. But that is hardly an excuse to not do the right thing, now is it?
CMatt25 said:
I’m not sure the left has ever been in charge, Ishii, or how long it’s been. But I haven’t seen those considered to be more on the left in Democratic Party circles such as the late Senator Ted Kennedy or Congressman Kucinich, winning any nominations in 1980, 2004, or 2008 when each of them ran for the Democratic Party’s nomination.
Click to expand...
The left is arguably more in charge now than it ever has been. If the left won an election and tried to ram through their complete agenda, there would be a backlash and they’d be voted out of office. Much safer for them to pass their programs a little at a time, to change society a little at a time. Here is a quote that I think might help you understand where I’m coming from, Cmatt. It is a quote from Peter Hitchens - the brother of the militant atheist Christopher Hitchens (who just passed away) - in which he shows the relationship of the secular left to that of the atheistic communists who ran the Soviet Union:

*Soviet Communism is organically linked to atheism, materialist rationalism and most of the other causes the new atheists support. It used the same language, treasured the same hopes and appealed to the same constituency as atheism does today.

When its crimes were still unknown, or concealed,** it attracted the support of the liberal intelligentsia who were then, and are even more now, opposed to religion**. * (my bold italics).

Cmatt, the secular left is more than happy to have liberal catholics on board, as long as they behave and don’t make a big deal out of those “one or two matters” that pertain to Catholic morality - such as abortion, euthenasia or marriage. They are more than happy to have your support as long as you limit you religious motivation to support for more government programs to “help” the poor - more government, etc. As long as you look the other way when they attack the Church and traditions, then they will embrace you. On the other hand, if you challenge them on the slaughter of the unborn, for example, they will kick you out - just ask Robert Casey, a Democrat who dared to challenge his party on abortion and was rewarded by being denied a chance to speak at the party’s convention.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255983/How-I-God-peace-atheist-brother-PETER-HITCHENS-traces-journey-Christianity.html#ixzz1gg7fqWqf
CMatt25 said:
And all I was trying to say was since you are still baffled after all that has been presented, as with most political discussions, minds are not easily changed on either side of the aisle. People have their politics and this forum is clearly an instrument of conservative politics. Peace Ishii.
Click to expand...
Still baffled, Cmatt. Baffled as to how one could support a party that is so at odds with Catholic morality. I guess one explanation is that for some, ideology trumps morality. But I have a hard time believing that explains everyone. Still baffled.

Ishii
 
Carlan said:
I am not what you call a liberal Democrat, and I don’t answer for Catholics who support and condone abortion or for Republicans who support abortion or for any other who support the killing of the innocent in the womb. Nether do I support and condone other mortal sinful behavior such as divorce and remarriage or immoral sexual activity between homosexuals or heterosexual. and the lists go on. So much of it all…all kinds of evil in this world.

Political party’s and Governments are not immune to any of it.
You kid yourself if you believe your political choice is free of any of it. I guess it is part of the human condition to resort to the blame game. What does it do but to make us feel better about our own bad choices and actions/
Dear God, have mercy on us all in your judgment, and forgive us. Peace, Carlan
Click to expand...
So all the candidates/politicians are evil so what does it matter? Is that what you’re saying? I disagree. I believe that we should look at what a candidate does and says and choose the one who is most in line with Catholic moral teaching. They are not all the same. There is, for example, a big difference between Rick Santorum and Obama on the issue of the sanctity of life, no? And that is my point - we have to make choices and all the candidates are flawed and sinful, but some are more in line with Catholic teaching on the issues that count than other candidates. Or, to put it more simply, I will not vote or support a candidate who actively works to keep abortion legal and government funded, or who works to undermine the traditional definition of marriage. Instead I will vote for someone who is closer to my views (and the Church’s) on those issues.

Ishii
 
Roy5 said:
God bless (and save) America!
Click to expand...
If you have any serious hope for saving America, it’s not going to happen with 4 more years of Obama.

Are you aware of that… yet?

Bolton is certainly qualified for the position Gingrich would want him to hold, if elected.
 
Caldera said:
If you have any serious hope for saving America, it’s not going to happen with 4 more years of Obama.

Are you aware of that… yet?

Bolton is certainly qualified for the position Gingrich would want him to hold, if elected.
Click to expand...
Hopefully any GOP candidate would make him Secretary of State. Has anyone actually looked at the job Hillary Clinton is doing? So much for the “reset” button.
 
SamH said:
Hopefully any GOP candidate would make him Secretary of State. Has anyone actually looked at the job Hillary Clinton is doing? So much for the “reset” button.
Click to expand...
I see Hillary Clinton as a sell-out to Islamic supremacists… Just like Obama has been… :mad:

Can we not get a good conservative in the White House in 2012, please!
 
One more time. Bolton would be a disaster for America as Secretary of State. His appointment would represent a major victory for the enemies of the United States. It’s hard for me to believe that well-informed patriotic citizens would favor him.
Code: 
 If you have watched him on TV over the years, as I have, you would know what I'm talking about. He has the diplomatic skills, understanding, and temperament of a bull in a china shop. 

  There are many reasons for opposing Gingrich, among them: (1) his work on behalf of Freddie Mac, (2) his huge and offensive and dangerous ego, (3) his sitting-out the Vietnam War while other risked their life, (4) his erratic behavior and swinging moods, (5) his ouster as head of House GOP; 6) his fine of $300,000 for unethical behavior, (7) his personal baggage - 2 divorces, infidelity, and three marriages - that serves as a poor presidential model, (8) his flip-flop of key issues, (9) his apparent emphasis on luxurious living (e. g., $500,000 account at Tiffany's, (10) opposition to him by everyone from Anne Coulter and George Will to the National Review and Chris Christie, etc.  However, his announcement that he would appoint Bolton alone is enough to disqualify him for president.
 
Roy5 said:
One more time. Bolton would be a disaster for America as Secretary of State. His appointment would represent a major victory for the enemies of the United States. It’s hard for me to believe that well-informed patriotic citizens would favor him.
Code: 
 If you have watched him on TV over the years, as I have, you would know what I'm talking about. He has the diplomatic skills, understanding, and temperament of a bull in a china shop. 

  There are many reasons for opposing Gingrich, among them: (1) his work on behalf of Freddie Mac, (2) his huge and offensive and dangerous ego, (3) his sitting-out the Vietnam War while other risked their life, (4) his erratic behavior and swinging moods, (5) his ouster as head of House GOP; 6) his fine of $300,000 for unethical behavior, (7) his personal baggage - 2 divorces, infidelity, and three marriages - that serves as a poor presidential model, (8) his flip-flop of key issues, (9) his apparent emphasis on luxurious living (e. g., $500,000 account at Tiffany's, (10) opposition to him by everyone from Anne Coulter and George Will to the National Review and Chris Christie, etc.  However, his announcement that he would appoint Bolton alone is enough to disqualify him for president.
Click to expand...
Just curious who you favor for president?
 
Roy5 said:
One more time. Bolton would be a disaster for America as Secretary of State. His appointment would represent a major victory for the enemies of the United States. It’s hard for me to believe that well-informed patriotic citizens would favor him.
Click to expand...
Still can’t list even a single specific example that supports your claims?

Just how “well informed” are you?

A couple weeks ago a person on this sight was going on about what a right wing radical Sarah Palin was. When I asked what made her a right wing radical the silence was deafening. Palin is hardly a right wing radical and is actually a middle of the road conservative - at best. Bolton actually represents a common sense center right approach to foreign policy.

Meanwhile Clinton has been a complete disaster. You have to go back to cold war days for a frostier relationship with the Russia, North Korea has made her look like a dunce and has her engaged in school yard insults, the Middle East has left her in a state of confusion - the only firm goal she has seems to be to insult Israel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top