British viewers should tune in to the Discovery History Channel next weekend for the whole sick and sorry story. Programme title: Wartime Secrets.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325204/Royal-British-Legions-shameful-...

Pacifism eh...

Based upon the large body of evidence contained in your responses to questions posed to you on this and a multitude of previous threads, only a selfish, ignorant and deluded individual of the female persuasion would have the temerity to ask such a damned stupid question, or conclude with such a statement.

"I rather enjoy my temporary staying on this planet peacefully".

What a selfish, ignorant and deluded little bitch you turned out to be.

There you go again, answering questions I didn't ask. I didn't ask you to acknowledge my admiration for the military, I asked you to acknowledge the simple fact that pacifism couldn't, doesn't and never will protect the innocent and the vulnerable from the evils perpetrated by the warmonger, no more than it could shield the pacifist from the assassin's bullet, knife, bomb etc,. If you won't take my word for it, perhaps you should read again how Ghandhi met HIS untimely end.

I KNOW that a nation that adopts pacifism has no military defence you idiot...

YOU are the pacifist. YOU are the one who seeks to convince the rest of us (and probably yourself, too, if truth be known) that pacifism is a viable alternative to military aggression. Admit the simple truth that pacifism is NOT a viable alternative to military aggression and we can then move on to discuss ANY related topic you wish to raise.

Renounce the false religion of pacifism, or face the consequences of your inaction. (Ridicule, pariah status etc.,) Don't be a martyr to the cause.

How would a nation that
chose pacifism as its defence policy prevent itself from being
attacked, occupied and its citizens slaughtered, tortured or
otherwise abused by the forces of ANY occupying power, should that
occupying power so wish to do?

The answer is logical, pacifism has no
military defence. But who are the noblemen? The massacred peaceful
citizens or the heroic conquerors? Can you indicate 'the great moral
character'?

Kappert: You STILL refuse to address the elementary question, how would a nation that chose pacifism as its defense policy prevent itself from being attacked, occupied and its citizens slaughtered, tortured or otherwise abused by the forces of ANY occupying power, should that occupying power so wish to do? And until you can do so, and you can't,you will not be taken seriously by any sane thinking individual of ANY religious persuasion, non-religious persuasion or political stripe. If I'm wrong PROVE IT, or go peddle your tripe somewhere else.

Thanks for your contribution. So, military is 'at its best' only with their own tribe, state or nation. Not with the people, but with the institution. Civilians, and a lot of them, die as collaterals or in terror attacks, I would attribute no honour for the fighters in these situations. Mais la guerre, c'est la guerre, n'est-ce pas. Running through machine gun fire and explosions to save (of course, if the guy is already dead, the runner is plain stupid) another soldier is therefore the quintessence of 'great moral character'. That's a rather low category, any banlieu streetfighter can be such a hero. There is always something to fight over. Very true, indeed. Yet, one might ask why some countries enter more often into warfare than others, check the statistics. As to wikileaks: your attempt to whitewash American involvement (wasn't there some scandal some time ago) is not honourable. Violations of conventions occur with the occupation forces as well as with the installed new democratic Iraqi regime, armed essentially by the U.S., not by Iran.

Kappert: No answers proffered then. Only vast mounds of tripe and even more tripe.

As every soldier must be guided by the noble self-sacrifice for another fellow, the current 'failed generation' should massively be drafted, that is, sacrificed with catholic blessings. Inshallah, some Muslims already apply this wisdom and sacrifice themselves as martyrs for their fellow citizens, if I understand you right, you would appreciate a similar attitude from our unsettled western heroes.

Perhaps you'd care to attempt to explain to me how the alleged abuses contained in those WikiLeaks by foreign occupying forces in Iraq would have been prevented had former dictator Saddam Hussein chosen to adopt your ideas.

Disbanding his entire military machine MIGHT have prevented the US-led invasion of Iraq, but it wouldn't have prevented Iran taking advantage of such a lunatic decision on his part, would it? Moreover, if the invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition was NOT about WMD, but ALL about the takeover of Iraq's considerable oil reserves, the US-led invasion would have taken place anyway, wouldn't it? So where does all THAT leave YOUR childish theory that pacifism "works"?

"Sh.. Happens," when Kappertism reigns supreme in the land. I think it was the good Archbishop's point that Kappertism is the guiding principle of the current failed generation and that a new ethic, founded on Christianity's founding principle, i.e., the  noble virtue of self-sacrifice for your fellow man/woman, even a kappert, is what every soldier must be guided by.

Hello there, back again after your alcoholic holidays. I'm glad you survived. Thanks for imagining all the people and greetings to your acquaintance Chief Hooting Owl. And now the curtain raises for Capo d'Istria and his catholic dedication: Military service is a vocation, it's ennobling because – at its best – military service expresses the greatest of all virtues: charity; a sacrificial love for people and things outside and more important than oneself. May I consider that military is hardly 'at its best' in any war, we should publish some interviews on that matter, oh, wikileaks has already done it. And where the hell is that sacrificial love for people??? Protect the moral character you build here, hear, hear, noblemen, as sacrificial service rooted in a living Catholic faith. And YOU are telling me something of 'fevered imagination'??

Good Sir/Lady Kappert.

Meanwhile, for something completely different on knighthood and chivalry....

"Thoughts on a New Knighthood" by one of those religious types

http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/4771

No borders (unless 'natural')

No Citizenship rules

No military defence of said 'natural', borderless entity.

No religion, too.

Imagine all the people...

Great Chief Hooting Owl still wouldn't be impressed and neither am I.

Great Chief Hooting Owl would probably invade your cacotopia and impose his will on its citizenry, and so would I.

Kappert, try using your already fevered imagination here and tell me, what are you going to do about that?

Thanks for your compliment on Leon Festinger, only that your 'loyalty' prophecy fails to define citizenship. To achieve your proclaimed 'mark of loyalty', how can a citizen possibly prove such arbitrary thesis. Perhaps swear an oath, as proclaimed in a well-known 'genuine democracy', or recite 'Wandrers Nachtlied', as proposed in a romantic European country, or knowing all presidents, as drill in school, or join the army, the 'ultimate loyalty proof'? As you say, nothing can tell us anything about the degree of loyalty or potential disloyalty citizens. It is not a matter of common sense but rather of fear that lead politicians to foster restricted voting rights to citizens, because these narrow minded politicians fear that persons do not play by their rules, which they want to maintain at any cost. This is a common detour in genuine democracies.

Islam is a doctrine of supremacism.  Just take a look of the thug in the video above.  Does he really think he could reign supreme in his society?

What really happens is he's brainwashed into believing Muslims are chosen by Allah to dominate the earth over dhimmis.  Yet in reality Islamic countries are amongst the poorest and least industrialized, hence most backward.

 When will they recognize that?

Is within you Atlanticist. Just one more bottle and you should have Kappert's answer all over your floors.

@ Kappert

I am passing this on to you because it definitely worked for me today, and we all could probably use more calm in our lives.

Some doctor on television this morning said that the way to achieve inner peace is to

FINISH ALL THINGS YOU HAVE STARTED.

So I looked around my house to see things I'd started and hadn't finished and, I finished off a bottle of Merlot, a bottle of Chardonnay, a bottle of Baileys, a butle of wum, a pockage of Prungles, tha mainder of bot Prozic and Valum scriptins, the res ov the Chesecke an a box a choclets.

Yu haf no idr how bludy guod I feel rite now.

Plaese sned dhis orn to dem yu fee ar in ned ov inner paece. Buf erst, ANSWER MY RUDDY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@ Atlanticist

Your 'test' is likely going to fail.  Kappert has no problem with logical inconsistencies and knows how to deal mentally with 'cognitive dissonance' and, what's more, even with divided loyalties. He/she always likes to keep all options open and abhors commitment (which normally entails 'sacifice').  We can not expect sacrifice from the products of contemporary naive-left education systems. They only know 'rights' and no duties, or at least they think they 'know'.  

Perhaps, a reasoned response might light a light bulb somewhere, but do not hold your breath.

In a genuine democracy, citizenship conveys rights as well as duties.  Citizenship is a 'mark', or a sign, of what one can minimally expect from the person in question. In the 'old days' it was natural to be primarily concerned with the welfare of one's own people (or fellow citizens as opposed to the rest-of-the-world), so that citizenship by birth usually and normally reflected that sign accurately. Today, with so much Western self-hatred being propagated in media and the education system, that mark or sign of citizenship is not so clear anymore. Citizenship by 'choice' in the 'olden days' also tended to be a clear sign of what to expect in terms of loyalty to the chosen people or 'polity', because at least it reflected a clear choice and a formal commitment. Again, today, there is ample evidence that such 'choices' involve a lot of lying.

There could be many legitimate reasons why a particular NONcitizen may be in a particular place for a number of years (5 is just an arbitrary number), but none of these can tell us anything about the degree of loyalty or potential disloyalty of such noncitizen to the 'polity' in question. It is just a matter of common sense for any polity to restrict voting rights to citizens, because such persons at least minimally can be expected to (by birth) or have expressed a clear choice/commitment to the polity in question. At the same time, a civilized and 'wise' polity will recognize a number of legitimate reasons for 'residence' of particular NONcitizens, and will not ban such residence. But, it must insist on linking voting rights with a clear citizenship choice, as a mark of loyalty and willingness to exercise duties for the polity (when necessary).

Of course, the naive-left mind cannot perceive of conflicting interests and differing aspirations among different polities, despite an abundance of empirical current and historical observation. Such a person is not loyal to a particular concrete people and/or polity, but imagines himself/herself to be loyal to an abstract ideal of a NONexisting world-without-conflicting-interests. One may wish away conflicts of loyalty, but these conflicts are very real, both in terms of personal lifes as well as among nations.

@ Marcfrans

Let's test kappert's newly discovered nation-state democratic credentials shall we?

@ Kappert

You wrote:

Any adult person

who's living five years in one place

should have

Local

Regional

National

voting rights.

Ok. So I take it you'd have no serious objections if the US Congress decided to dissolve the Union and return the land of the contiguous United States of America to the ownership of its original Indian inhabitants, while at the same time mandating that all adults who have lived on the land for 5 years or more should continue to have the right to vote on how the newly established Indian territories should be governed etc,. Well, that might be fine with you, but I doubt very much it would go down too well with Great Chief Hooting Owl and his band of merry braves, do you?

It seems, marcfrans does not appreciate the American year 1776, probable it's too revolutionary or too democratic for him. Anyway, any adult person who's living five years in one place should have local, regional and national voting rights. As there are people who guess what I'm thinking: I'm curious for the reasons against the proposal.

@ Atlanticist

It is a recurring issue for the left.  When they fear losing among citizens, they seek new voters elsewhere.  Today's left does not take citizenship serious.

In 'liberal' Portland, Maine, the proposed voting rights for noncitizens would be limited to local elections.  I hope it fails, and if it doesn't, that it faces a challenge in the courts.  

Apparently, Kappert seems to think that there was already much 'democracy' in the world in 1776, or in the 19th century. To him "voting" would always be...well...voting. I bet you that he thinks that Ahmadinejad was 'elected' by people with "voting rights"!!

Historically, 40 states allowed noncitizens to vote going back to 1776,
but an anti-immigrant backlash in the late 1800s and early 1900s
resulted in laws that eliminated their voting rights by 1926.

For more: http://www.pressherald.com/news/portland-weighs-voting-rights-for-its-no...

What's this I hear about Portland, Maine and its ballot measure which would allow non-citizens (like Kappert) to vote in US elections? And who are The League of Young Voters?

Another hotspot:

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/556299.aspx

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-506157?ref=feeds%2Flatest

http://www.thelocal.se/29776/20101023/

The Belgian electorate has been braindead for many years, a common occurence in the West.

What were the Belgians thinking of when they admitted so many Moslems?  Were they ignorant of the 1400 year old enmity between Islam and Christendom?  Lack of moral imagination seems to be the key failing of modern Westerners.  Liberals think everyone just wants to be like them, contented cogs in a production-consumption machine, to be discarded and melted down when they wear out.  This world is not a machine.  Moslems will not just fit in.  Christians will not just fit in, for that matter. 

(And what were we thinking, here in the U.S.?  When we welcomed Somali refugees who later cheered 9/11?  And sent their children to train for jihad?  To quote Bob Dylan:  "We're idiots, babe.  It's a wonder we can even feed ourselves."  The conclusion is obvious:  Moslems have no place in the West.)