Why do you still believe...?

[trulykiwi]

I'm sorry to be blunt, but everybody has an opinion and is wavering and being tossed too and fro by the very people who want you to believe all the lies!

Like I said in another post, you must read 'NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY' by Gary Allen. In a talk Pres Ezra Taft Benson knew what was going to happen and URGED us to read this book. It will educate you on what is really going on.

I have a PDF of the book if you want to PM me.

It will really let you know what is going on now is the result of what this book talks about. ENDORSED BY A PROPHET!

[rameumptom]

I read Gary Allen's book in the 1970s. I'm not convinced that there is a group of Illuminati still floating around pulling strings behind the scenes.

I do believe there are various groups and individuals who seek to establish their own version of the Millennium, and have views of grandeur - being saviors to all mankind.

These groups think that a global financial and governmental power would heal all the world's wars, etc. They don't realize that an absence of war does not equal peace.

They also believe that "free trade" will be a continual boon to everyone. It won't be, as eventually it still will all collapse (as we are now seeing).

The scriptures teach us that Babylon will rise in power in the last days. It will be a coop of nations and nation-groups that will focus on economic issues, as Revelation tells us that those who will not worship the Beast will not be able to buy nor sell.

Zion will also be established at this time, as the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, which will grow ever bigger and destroy nations as it becomes the Kingdom of God on earth. Visions by Church leaders over the years suggest that this nation (USA) will fall into collapse, during which Zion must be established by the Saints. It will be the Elders of Israel that will preserve the Constitution. The USA will break into large "tribes", with the Saints gathering together with other righteous people for protection and to establish their heavenly order. Meanwhile, the wicked will form mobs and fight amongst themselves. D&C 45 tells us that those who dwell among the wicked, who will not lift their swords to fight, "must needs flee to Zion for safety."

What we need to do is listen to the living prophets. President Hinckley gave a very strong warning in Priesthood Session of General Conference in 1998 for us to get out of debt. He actually talked about the Great Depression and of Pharaoh's dream of 7 good and 7 bad years. Those who paid attention had a decade to prepare for what we're going through.

[Elphaba]

Money obviously isn't natural but we objectify it in such a way that people could not even fathom a world without it ...

Of course it's impossible to fathom a world without money. Without it, civilizations would fail.

How that money is created, and funded by a government is another issue. It may be gold or it may be cows, but it will always exist.

Even if a society were created with the best intentions not to use anything resembling money, people would still trade what they own to obtain what another person owns, e.g. people will trade their chickens for groceries.

As long as a civilization makes trades, even if it's chickens, there will be money.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Those who grope in darkness always seeking the wrong savior for their plight in life.

Seeking the wrong savior is not how I picture those who grope in darkness.

Elphaba

[Moksha]

I'm sorry to be blunt, but everybody has an opinion and is wavering and being tossed too and fro by the very people who want you to believe all the lies!

We have a variety of political opinions here.

Like I said in another post, you must read 'NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY' by Gary Allen. In a talk Pres Ezra Taft Benson knew what was going to happen and URGED us to read this book. It will educate you on what is really going on.

ENDORSED BY A PROPHET!

This leads to the interesting apologetics question of when someone in his position is speaking as a prophet or as a man. This endorsement sounds more like right-wing kookiness than the words of God, so I assume he was speaking as a man. I think this was also the case, when he espoused that civil rights for blacks was a product of "International Communism". That former rhetoric is now an embarrassment to the Church and was totally inaccurate. The quest for freedom and liberty is innate in most humans and conforms with Jesus' wish to have us love others. Black people wanting the same rights and freedoms, we all had been guaranteed, was a natural offshoot from their own desires and not part of any Communist plan to wound America through limiting its racist behavior. Benson was merely letting his political ideology color his judgment. There were also members of the Church, at that time, who realized that standing up for civil rights was the morally right thing to do. A few of them even said so publicly. They too realized that looking for a commie or conspiracy behind every corner, blinded them to the needs of Humanity.

:)

[Elphaba]

Honey, . . .

Condescension has no place on these boards, and you owe JAdams an apology.

I believe JAdams is a man. I only mention it becase it's unusual for one man to call another man "honey." Perhaps you're more progressive than that.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

ENDORSED BY A PROPHET!

No it was not. Benson was not yet the prophet, and his exhortations were his opinion only, not revelations from God.

In fact, the Church does not endorse President Benson‘s personal beliefs, so why should you?

Benson was a fanatic and a bigot. He literally linked communism to the civil rights movement, and despised Martin Luther King, among other civil rights activists, claiming civil rights were one of the ways communists were infiltrating America.

President Benson exhorted Church members to join the John Birch Society, an extreme right-wing group that supported Benson’s extreme right-wing beliefs. It is unimaginable any Church authority would do the same today.

Besides his right-wing extremism, President Benson also wrote the now denounced Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet, which, it turns out, he did write when he was the prophet.

I’m not saying there was never a time when it was considered doctrinal--there was. But since that time, it is never used in any official Church venues, nor is it considered doctrinal, or even truthful.

Another example: If you believe President Benson’s extremist views were prophetic, do you also believe President Joseph F. Smith was correct about evolution, written before he became a prophet?

In Man: His Destiny and Origin, President Smith denies evolution outright. Although he was not a prophet when he wrote it, he did become one. But the Church has since clarified it has no position on evolution, at all. So the fact he wrote the book, and became the prophet, does not make his book the Church’s official stance.

So the question is, do you believe the book is accurate, given it was written by a prophet?

Do you also believe?:

Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.

After all, it was said by President Brigham Young, a prophet.

(Edit: Please ignore this paragraph, as it is replaced by the paragraph below, written in purple. Sorry for the confusion.)The information you have presented to buttress your claims is an excellent example of a future, or even a present-day prophet, presenting his personal opinions as facts. President Benson might have endorsed your position, but his comments are not supported by the Church itself. They are only one man’s extremist opinions, period.

(Edit: In the paragraph directly above, I meant to write: The information you have presented to buttress your claims is an excellent example of a future, or even a present-day prophet, presenting his personal opinions as facts. President Benson might have endorsed your position, but not as a prophet. They are only one man’s extremist opinions, period.)

Elphaba

Edited February 27, 2009 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Moreover, much (though by no means all) of the actual reconstruction in Iraq was done under the aegis of the State Department, not the Pentagon .. . .

Just a clarification, there is no "actual reconstruction," in Iraq. Most of the country is still in the shambles we caused by our invasion and occupation.

That's not to say there aren't places where reconstruction is evident, nor does it mean we have not undertaken numerous reconstruction projects. But those who undertake these projects face many obstacles, including the relentless suicide bombers who blow themselves up for Allah. .

That's not to say there are no successful reconstructions, as there are. Some of these places have come alive again with Iraqi citizens walking among the streets and businesses.

But there are so many other places that were obliterated by the war and have not been reconstructed, there are children literally living and playing in sewer water. Here is an example:

Caption: Ayat Nabeel, 13, picks rice grains out of sewer water outside her home in the Shawaka neighbourhood of Baghdad. She hopes to sell the rice to neighbours as feed for their chickens.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

We will never complete an "actual reconstruction." in Iraq, and experts have known this since 2003. The damage is too vast, and the political situation too dangerous. This is not going to change for decades, if at all.

Rant over.

Elphaba

Edited February 27, 2009 by Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't want to be Pollyannaish or downplay the obstacles you cite, Elphaba; nor do I ignore that KBR/Halliburton and other US contractors have often turned out inferior products.

But it's just plain wrong to say that there's "no reconstruction" going on in Iraq, and similarly wrong to imply that every thing we build gets immediately blown up.

It's also not fair to blame all of Iraq's woes on the 2003 invasion. UN sanctions had been taking their toll on Iraq's physical infrastructure for the previous decade, and Hussein had been engaged in a calculated effort to destroy Iraq's social infrastructure for the last thirty/forty years.

Iraq was broken long before our tanks rolled into Baghdad.

[bytor2112]

Benson was a fanatic and a bigot

So, God is now calling bigots and fanatics to be the Prophet of his church??????

So is bashing Prophets now acceptable and you get thanked by members of the church??? Hello???????

[hordak]

So, God is now calling bigots and fanatics to be the Prophet of his church??????

Gods prophets have done worse.

22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.

23 ¶ And he went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

[bytor2112]

Referring to a late President of the church as a "bigot" and a "fanatic" crosses the line in my humble opinion and to receive a "thanks" from a church member is......... confusing?

There are many ways to express disagreement, but that kind of smear shouldn't happen.....again my opinion. And President Benson, while not the President of the church in 1972, I believe he was an Apostle and we do sustain them as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

[LittleWyvern]

Referring to a late President of the church as a "bigot" and a "fanatic" crosses the line in my humble opinion and to receive a "thanks" from a church member is......... confusing?

There's a difference between calling a prophet a bigot and a fanatic and calling a person a bigot and a fanatic. I thought Elphaba made it very clear that she was referring to Benson's political, personal views, not Benson in the capacity of a prophet.

Anyway, the thanks I gave for that post was because Elphaba articulated my reluctance to accept the NWO conspiracy as gospel truth at trulykiwi's urgings better than I could (you can see my failed attempts on the last page, hehe).

[Just_A_Guy]

22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.

23 ¶ And he went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

You only think that's bad because no one has ever made fun of you for being bald.

[bytor2112]

Besides his right-wing extremism, President Benson also wrote the now denounced Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet, which, it turns out, he did write when he was the prophet.

Fourteen Fundamentals of following the Prophet was given as a devotional address at BYU in 1980. He was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time.....sustained as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, but not the President of the church.

The talk can still be found on .........LDS.org - Liahona Article - Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet

Edited February 27, 2009 by bytor2112

[rameumptom]

Elder Benson spoke like most of the apostles of his day. They were extremely opinionated and shared their opinions from the General Conference pulpit and in their writings.

Elder McConkie's first edition of Mormon Doctrine proclaimed that the Catholic Church was the great and abominable church that Nephi prophecies about. He was ordered to change that and several hundred other things for the second edition.

While Joseph F Smith and Bruce R. McConkie insisted that evolution was of the devil, other apostles, like James Talmage, kept an open mind on it. Dallin Oaks and Jeffrey Holland were both presidents of BYU, which openly teaches evolution. Pres Eyring's father was a world renowned biologist, who believed in evolution. Pres Hugh B Brown and Elder Benson did not see eye to eye on political issues, at all.

The thing is, their calling is not to be presidents of the United States or scientists. Their calling is to be prophets and to lead people to salvation and exaltation. For this reason, the Church has made a huge effort since the mid-1980s to refocus all the General Authorities on the doctrine of Christ, rather than on political or scientific issues. Pres Packer tells us to "teach the doctrine" and not to speculate.

As prophet, Ezra Taft Benson did not speak his political rhetoric concerning communism, Illuminati, etc. He had many chances to do so, but instead told us to study the Book of Mormon, Beware of Pride, Focus on our duties as Fathers/Mothers/Single Adults/Home Teachers/etc. He took upon himself the mantle of prophet, which mandated that he focus on the things God would have him speak at all times. As prophet, we do not see Pres Benson speaking out against Civil Rights, but was one of the witnesses to the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. Pres Benson worked to expand missionary work to black communities and into Africa. I recall being ward mission leader and in the stake mission presidency in Montgomery Alabama in 1987, when we first began taking the gospel to the black communities. Tuskegee opened up, with me as their group leader - it is now a branch. And while other churches retained their segregated assemblies, we were truly integrating ourselves. And Pres Benson was the prophet overseeing these changes.

I believe he had strong opinions. I think he was correct that communist entities were pushing forth and affecting the Civil Rights movement. However, I think he should have encouraged those groups under the shelter of the gospel, rather than pushing them away into the arms of radicals. Hindsight can be 20-20. As it is, those same radicals are now integrated into much of the environmental movement today, as well as other groups. I remember when I was a proud member of Greenpeace. No longer.

[LittleWyvern]

There are many ways to express disagreement, but that kind of smear shouldn't happen.....again my opinion. And President Benson, while not the President of the church in 1972, I believe he was an Apostle and we do sustain them as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

I suppose I should explain myself better. Do I think that Benson is a bad prophet? No. Do I think he is a bigot or fanatic as far as his capacity as a prophet is concerned? No. I just simply do not agree with some of Benson's political views, which some could call bigoted or fanatic (the views, not the person). I mean no disrespect to Benson, and I apologize if my comments have offended anyone.

[Moksha]

However, I think he should have encouraged those groups under the shelter of the gospel, rather than pushing them away into the arms of radicals. Hindsight can be 20-20.

Too bad it had to be in hindsight. Think how much better received in today's world the Church would have been, if the 1978 revelation had occured in 1948. I would say, as a general rule, that anytime we set out to limit the love of God we will have regrets in hindsight.

[Elphaba]

I was wrong when I wrote that President Benson’s Fourteen Fundamentals of a Prophet had been denounced. It has not.

I was also wrong when I wrote that President Benson (who was actually an Elder at the time) wrote the Fourteen Fundaments of a Prophet, while he was a prophet--he was not. He was an apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve.

In fact, both of my comments are overreaching.

I got the impression the fundamentals had been denounced during my frequent visits to the FAIR and MADB boards. In fact, http://en.fairmormon.org/One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/The_LDS_as_Mindless_Followers

may explain why I did so:

It needs to be emphasized that Ezra Taft Benson was not the "president" of the LDS Church when he delivered this address at Brigham Young University on 26 February 1980. He was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and he was talking to "students." This devotional was published only once, in the Church's overseas magazine (Liahona/Tambuli, June 1981), but it was still specified in the text that Elder Benson belonged to "the Quorum of the Twelve" when his remarks were delivered.

Whenever FAIR intimates a prophet, even a future one, spoke as a man, it means what he said is not to be taken as binding doctrine.

Additionally, from the lds.org Newsroom:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

I would say this quote applies to Elder Benson’s talk, except for the fact that his Fourteen Fundamentals are, in fact, published in a number of Church publications, including seminary and institute manuals. I think it is disingenuous of FAIR to state otherwise.

It is also published in numerous LDS-related publications, such as Meridian Magazine. In fact, I was very surprised at how many of these sites have referenced it very recently.

The fact that it is printed in LDS-related sites does not mean it is doctrinal, or non-doctrinal. I recognize that. I just wanted to demonstrate where I got my impression about the fundamentals, even though I now see my statement, as I acknowledged above, was overreaching.

I apologize for my mistake, and hope this clarifies the matter.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I do not apologize for calling President Benson a fanatic and a bigot, because I adamantly believe he was.

However, I want to make one clarification that was raised in another post. While Elder Benson was a fanatic ultra-conservative with his tongue full of absurd conspiracy theories, once he became President Benson, the prophet, the fanatic disappeared, and did not rear its ugly head gain.

He did not continue his exhortations about the civil rights movement, communism, or blacks. He did not raise the issues at all as the prophet.

In fact, as the prophet, he wrote:

My heart has been filled with an overwhelming love and compassion for all members of our Heavenly Father’s children everywhere. I love all our Father’s children. (President Ezra Taft Benson, 11 November 1985. Church News, 17 Nov. 1985, pp. 3, 7.) (Church News archives not available online before 1988.)

He also said:

We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God. And that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship. There is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed. We repudiate efforts to deny to any person his or her inalienable dignity and rights on the abhorrent and tragic theory of the superiority of one race or color over another. (Church Issues Statement on Racial Equality, “News of the Church,” Ensign, Feb. 1988, 74)

It is a relief to see his quotes here, especially because they are so polarized from his comments prior to his becoming the prophet. I do wonder how this turn of heart came to be, but no matter. It happened, and that is a good thing.

Prior to his becoming the prophet, Elder Benson believed America's civil rights movement was part of a communist plot to destroy the country. He constantly insisted the black movement was fueled by communists who were using the "negro" for their own purposes, insisting that civil rights grievances by blacks were exploited by the communists "to agitate blacks into hating whites and whites into hating blacks."

He hated Dr. Martin Luther King. He said:

The man who is generally recognized as the leader of the so-called civil rights movement today in America is a man who has lectured at a Communists training school, who has solicited funds through Communist sources, who hired a Communist as a top-level aide, who has affiliated with Communist fronts, who is often praised in the Communist press and who unquestionably parallels the Communist line. This same man advocates the breaking of the law and has been described by J. Edgar Hoover as ‘the most notorious liar in the country.’ . . .

Would anyone deny that the President [Lyndon Johnson], the chief law enforcer in the United States, belies his position by playing gracious host to the late Martin L. King who has preached disobedience to laws which in his opinion are unjust?(Ezra Taft Benson, “It Can Happen Here,” in An Enemy Hath Done This, Jerreld L. Newquist, comp. [salt Lake City, Utah: Parliament Publishers, 1969], pp. 103, 310)

In General Conference of October 1967, he wrote condescendingly of African-Americans:

The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced.

. . . .

First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder. Not one in a thousand Americans -- black or white -- really understands the full implications of today's civil rights agitation. The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own.

Next, we must not participate in any so-called "blacklash" activity which might tend to further intensify inter-racial friction. Anti-Negro vigilante action, or mob action, of any kind fits perfectly into the Communist plan. This is one of the best ways to force the decent Negro into cooperating with militant Negro groups. The Communists are just as anxious to spearhead such anti-Negro actions as they are to organize demonstrations that are calculated to irritate white people.

We must insist that duly authorized legislative investigating committees launch an even more exhaustive study and expose the degree to which secret Communists have penetrated into the civil rights movement. The same needs to be done with militant anti-Negro groups. This is an effective way for the American people of both races to find out who are the false leaders among them.

He warned Americans:

It is happening here! . . . The communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced.

He also warned Americans:

It now seems probable that the Communists are determined to use force and violence to its fullest, coupled with a weakening of the economy and military setbacks abroad, in an effort to create as much havoc as possible to weaken American internally, and to create the kind of psychological desperation in the minds of all citizens that will lead them to accept blindly government measures which actually help the Communists in their take-over.

Once again, he warned Americans:

to be on guard for African-Americans who had migrated to the Northern states, as they "applied this same strategy to the so-called ‘ghetto’ areas in the North.”

From Time Magazine, August 1966:

Last week Journal leaders reported that Mormon Apostle Ezra Taft Benson has been trying to push his church into an ultraconservative political stance; that the Federal Government has be come disenchanted with de facto segregated neighborhood schools, is now subtly pushing such ideas as "education plazas" that would serve the school needs of an entire community; and that a growing number of juvenile courts are using teen-age "juries" to recommend sentences for young errants.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is more, but if you don’t get my point by now, you’re not going to.

I have to say, something really interesting happened as I was culling the quotes for this post: I realized Elder Benson's quotes sounded very familiar, and finally I realized why.

I’m reading some of the same fanaticism on this board. The difference is “negro” and "communists" have been replaced by “liberals.”

In fact, I have really enjoyed putting this post together, because it clearly demonstrates why it is so vital that we study history. It is so true that the only way not to repeat the mistakes of the past is to know about them: claiming it is the liberals' goal is to turn our country into a socialist state is as dangerous as Benson claiming the civil rights movement was fueled by communists.

We all love our country, and it would never occur to me to question a conservative's intentions as anything other than to do what s/he can for our country.

Likewise, the fact that I am a liberal does not give anyone the right to question my patriotism or commitment to doing what I can to see it thrive.

When we demonize each other like this, we talk about each other no differently than Benson did about blacks and communists. This is abhorrent to me, and I hope it is to you as well.

Also, if you've actually read my post this far, I hope it will jar you, as it did me putting it together. Perhaps by looking at Elder Benson's dangerous fanaticism, we can see, that in 2009, we all need to stop incessantly accusing each other of evil and extremism, and accept we are all just people, doing our best in a very difficult time.

Elphaba

[Palerider]

Elphaba...before you go and dig your heels in....you might want to read the site rules again....just a thought.....in regards to your post.

[Elphaba]

Elphaba...before you go and dig your heels in....you might want to read the site rules again....just a thought.....in regards to your post.

Okay, I read them.

Why don't you PM and let me know the problem?I recall the time you told me to PM you with issues rather than write posts on the board.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Once again, Elder Benson spoke his opinions very strongly, as did all other GAs. Just look at how powerfully others also spoke, often on topics we do not consider PC today.

Elphaba, I think there is a difference between the average liberal, and the extreme leftists who are trying to socialize the country. There is a major difference between President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, for instance.

Then again, while you opine the attacks made on liberals, many opine how the liberals continually call conservatives "Nazis", "baby killers", etc. So, the attacks work from both sides of the aisle.

[Elphaba]

Once again, Elder Benson spoke his opinions very strongly, as did all other GAs. Just look at how powerfully others also spoke, often on topics we do not consider PC today.

I never said otherwise.

Elphaba, I think there is a difference between the average liberal, and the extreme leftists who are trying to socialize the country. There is a major difference between President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, for instance.

You've just made my point.

You see extreme leftists because you don't agree with their policies, and you get to do that. But it's ridiculous to take your disagreement into the next step of demonizing those you disagree with--calling people leftists who want to socialize the country. No one wants to socialize the country.

They want to help people in dire straights. There is a difference.

Then again, while you opine the attacks made on liberals, many opine how the liberals continually call conservatives "Nazis", "baby killers", etc. So, the attacks work from both sides of the aisle.

You can't be serious.

When have conservatives ever been called " baby killers"? It is the people who support a right to choose that are called “baby killers,” and you’ve just acknowledged it is a slur.

Perhaps you mean it in some other context, but the only time I hear “baby killers” is in reference to abortion.

Regarding conservatives being called Nazis, I was dumbstruck by that comment. So I ran a google search and came up with the following:

1) liberal sites that call conservatives "Nazi": nine (9) liberal sites called conservatives Nazis; and three (3) conservative sites that rebutted the arguments of three individual liberal who called conservatives Nazis. (The last three were iffy, but I added them anyway.)

The is a total of 12 sites that called conservatives a Nazi.

2) conservative sites the call libersals "Nazi": There is a total of twenty-eight (28) conservative sites that called liberals a Nazi, more than double the conservatives called Nazis"

Again, I only counted sites from the first page of each search.

Frankly, I was shocked at your accusation that liberals call conservatives Nazis, as if it happened often--according to my search, it does not.

Additionally, you’d have to have had your head in the sand not to have known about the innumerable comparisons conservatives have made to liberals being Nazis, including President Obama. In fact, a few of them are on this very board.

Elphaba

Edited March 1, 2009 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I really don‘t know how to respond to your post without writing a book. These issues are complicated and not easy to explain in three-sentence paragraphs. So, I‘m just gonna go for it, and you get to not read it if you wish.

I don't want to be Pollyannaish or downplay the obstacles you cite, Elphaba; nor do I ignore that KBR/Halliburton and other US contractors have often turned out inferior products.

But it's just plain wrong to say that there's "no reconstruction" going on in Iraq,

(Just a FYI: quote marks around someone’s words indicate you are quoting him/her verbatim. Since I never wrote “no reconstruction,” it should not be in quotes.)

I never said there was “no reconstruction” in Iraq. In fact, I acknowledged there were success stories when I wrote of the “Iraqi citizens walking among the streets and businesses.”

What I said is there is no “actual reconstruction,“ and what I meant by that is different from “no reconstruction. However, I realize now I inferred something different than what you meant, so your criticism is fair. Let me clarify:

To me, “actual reconstruction” means permanent, inhabitable and safe facilities, constructed to allow Iraq‘s citizens to resume a normal semblance of life. But every time a suicide bomber blows him/herself up in a crowd, buildings are damaged, including those recently re/constructed.

Until the suicide bombs stop, this is not going to change. Until the terrorists are forced out of the country by other Iraqis, there will be no actual reconstruction, as these people do not want Iraq to succeed, especially if we are working with these Iraqis.

I showed the graphic image of the little girl sifting through sewage water for rice grains. This is an image that is repeated throughout the neighborhoods of Baghdad. Their houses have been blown apart by both terrorists and our military. But we know that trying to go in and rebuild these houses would put these citizens at a huge risk of being punished by the terrorists. Having your head sawed off is a good deterrent; thus, these neighborhoods will not rbe actually reconstructed for some time, and not with the help of the Americans.

So I did not mean there was no reconstruction period; rather, I meant there was no real lasting construction that will replace the buildings and infrastructure needed for the country to resume some semblance of normality. This is because too many people in Iraq hate us, and want our efforts, and occupation, to fail, and as I said above, each time a suicide bomber’s bomb goes off, the result is not just horror, it is bombed out buildings, many we’ve already repaired. And that is not going to change.

and similarly wrong to imply that every thing we build gets immediately blown up.

You keep saying I said something I did not.

I did not say “every thing gets immediately blown up.” In fact, I acknowledged there were successful reconstructions when I wrote:

Elphaba: That's not to say there are no successful reconstructions, as there are. Some of these places have come alive again with Iraqi citizens walking among the streets and businesses.

However, it would be folly not to acknowledge the number of facilities American contractors and soldiers have tried to provide the Iraqi people, only to have them destroyed by terrorists.

It's also not fair to blame all of Iraq's woes on the 2003 invasion.

Once again, I did not say Iraq’s woes were the fault of the 2003 invasion; however, I would be interested in your list of Iraq's woes that cannot be directly linked to our invasion. I'm not saying your list might not exist. But I am saying there aren't many of Iraq's woe we did not cause in some manner.

Bush’s reason for the 2003 invasion, called Operation Iraqi Freedom, was the disarmament of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, who was accused of developing and concealing weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN resolutions. Despite Hans Blix', in charge of the UN inspection team, insistence the inspections were working and there was no reason to invade the country, Bush brought the inspectors out, and rushed the troops in.

At first, thousands of Iraqi citizens were overjoyed at the demise of Saddam’s megalomaniacal rule. These citizens included engineers, teachers, physicians, professors, police, etc. They were fully ready to take over the running of the country, as had been promised them by the Bush administration.

Unfortunately, because there was no strategy for what to do after we had taken Baghdad, Bush appointed Paul Bremer to be the Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Service. Bremer proved to be inept, especially in his refusal to allow any Iraqis any authority in the reconstruction of their country.

One of Bremer’s failures was when he refused to utilize the Ba’th party members, who were mostly apolitical, but highly educated. Bremer banned them from holding any positions in the new government and public services.

This infuriated the Iraqi citizens who had been promised to be included in all aspects of the country’s reconstruction, which resulted in the first rumblings of the insurgency. In fact many non-violent people excited to be freed from Saddam’s tyranny, eventually joined the insurgency out of rage against the occupation. They continued to see their holy cities destroyed and their fellow Iraqi’s killed, and the rage grew, and the insurgency never wanted for members.

So, yes, the 2003 invasion is responsible for Iraqi’s woes. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, it was only the beginning of an outrageous occupation that killed probably close to a million Iraqi citizens, as well as 4259+ of our soldiers. It continues to kill and maim innocent people to this day.

UN sanctions had been taking their toll on Iraq's physical infrastructure for the previous decade

No they hadn’t. In fact, after the war with Iran, the infrastructure was repaired quickly, and then after the Desert Storm invasion, where Baghdad was pounded relentlessly, the infrastructure was built once more.

Iraq had a thriving tourist industry, and would host international businesses exhibitions, and the like. It was a city that had no problem providing the services, including electricity and water processing, that any city needs to thrive. That has never been true the past six years since

, and Hussein had been engaged in a calculated effort to destroy Iraq's social infrastructure for the last thirty/forty years.

I agree. So what?

I won’t go into all of Saddam’s evil faults, as I know you already know them. Suffice it to say his wrath was directed at the Shi’ia, whom he terrorized and oppressed with no thought that they were human beings.

But, in a very twisted way, he kept the peace by terrorizing the Shi’ia. He understood the difference between the Sunni and Shi'ia, and how the situation would explode, as he would be unleashing ancient and insidious rivalries that would result in a violent civil war--much like we've witnessed since our invasion.

Iraq was broken long before our tanks rolled into Baghdad.

I don't know what you mean here, so I can't respond.

I know I've written about the worst without acknowledging the best. I promise, I know ther are numerous success stories. But the bad, is really really bad.

So, as far as an actual reconstruction, the picture of the little Iraqi girl says it all, and until the day comes where she no longer has to search through sewage to find grains of rice, there will be no “actual reconstruction.”

Finally, just for you, here is a news story about the opening of the newly reconstructed museum in Baghdad, a success story you’ll enjoy:

Baghdad museum reopens 6 years after looting

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's restored National Museum reopened Monday with a red-carpet gala in the heart of Baghdad nearly six years after looters carried away priceless antiquities as American troops largely stood by in the chaos of the city's fall to U.S. forces.

. . . .

Once the home of one of the world's leading collections of artifacts, the museum fell victim to bands of armed thieves who rampaged through the capital after the Americans captured Baghdad in April 2003.

It was among many institutions looted across Iraq, including universities, hospitals and cultural offices. But the richness of the museum's collection — and its importance as the caretaker of Iraq's historical identity — led to an outcry around the world.

. . . .

Initially only organized tours for students and other groups will be allowed to enter but the doors will eventually open to individual visitors.

Al-Talqani said he was confident in the security measures taken to protect the museum, although he declined to be more specific.

"We expect no security problems and hope everything will run smoothly," he said.

Elphaba