Michael Anthony Peroutka Endorses Ron Paul

From the wording of your post, it seems to me that you believe you have leadership skills in the areas of military science, foreign affairs, government, and political science. It would be really interesting to know your background in these areas.

 

He has said we were wrong on WMDs. That doesn't mean we are wrong to finish the job. I think Bush has been a poor leader.

Please read the post to Ken, and consider the definitino of words and their use in logic and argumentation. The fact that there is no proof that he had them is not the same as "knowing" that he did not have them.

Yes; No.

That in 20-30 years, if Iraq succeeds in being a functioning stable democracy that is leading the region, Bush will be vindicated on this war.

I can't think of any good thing Carter did.

No, not as an occupier. But we stayed in Germany and Japan for longer than that in order to have forces in strategic places.

Yes, they have been called on to help and they need to step up.

 

You have grossly misread. What I have said is to caution those who pretend to know more than they do. That should have been clear from what was said.

 

I don't think that's the fundamental question at all. I don't think those things, in Islam, are particularly important. The fundamental question is, "Can we persuade Muslim factions of the dignity of human life with the result that they will agree to disagree without the use of violence?"

When you ask the wrong question, you will get the wrong answer. For me, I don't care whether Muslims like freedom of speech, religion, or whatever. I do care whether or not they will peacefully allow others to disagree with them.

The truth is that in history, when people have been permitted to vote, they have always voted for more freedom, not less. That is the history you are not paying attention to, it seems. You would rather let a few dictators lead rather than allow the people to have a voice. I think that is fundamentally misguided.

We need Sunni and Shia to agree to disagree agreeably.

 

Probably your focus is on inflation, interest rates, and a lack of resolve of the military. Yet you forget the peace accords between Egypt and Israel, a lasting peace to this day. He certainly was not the best President, and I did not vote for him, but upon closer examination, one could find lots of good he did, one of his qualites being honesty.

It seems that your statements are in conflict. You say Bush will be found to have done some good in 20-30 years, yet Carter, you cannot think of one thing. How can you possibly foresee how history will judge 30 years from now, when you have no insight as to how history is judgeing now, from 30 years ago.

Do you have any insight skills into leadership qualities or character of our leaders at all?

 

You said Ken was ill equiped to be a leader in these areas. I kind of know his background, so I was wondering what yours were?

 

True, but only after it was brought out by others. The honesty I am talking about from a good leader is the kind that mentions their mistakes BEFORE it's brought out by someone else. It doesn't show anything if he is just "honest after someone else made him" It's kind of like your child saying he is sorry for something because mom made him. Is he really sorry, or is he doing it only because mom told him too?

Isn't that the truth!

The word in that sentence is IF. Knowing the history of that area, I don't think peace is attainable, but that is my opinion.

That just goes to show your one sided train of thought. You can't even look back and see any good that Carter did, but you're ready to wait 30 years for something to show good in Bush. Carter was by no means a great or even a good president, but he did do good. You can try to "not find it" if you want, the history books are on my side.

Yeah, that has to to be the reason we're buiding a military base right next to Iran. It wouldn't have anything to do with poking them with our big stick and seeing if they get mad enough to bite... Peace, that's all we're there for huh?

And exactly how much time is enough? How long do we wait for them to stand up, or even begin to stand up? Is that part of the 30 years you're talking about too?

Jamie

 

s a

That's a very interesting question. It's also one that should be answered since Ken's background was called into question.

How about it Pastor Larry? Since you seem to think others here pretend to know more than they do, and you're a wealth of information on the topic, please tell us of your background and your studies.

Jamie

 

Again, I have to say that your "seem" meter is simply wrong. The peace accords were not really the product of Carter's leadership but rather the product of two nations who decided to fix a problem. Furthermore, I said "I can't think ..." which means that nothing came to mind. (Remember to read what I say and no read into what I don't say.) But 30 years later, Carter's presidency is not generally well-regarded.

My comments on 30 years and Bush have been very clearly related to the state of Iraq and democracy in the Middle East in 30 years. If you read what I actually said (again, please do), you will see this. If Iraq has returned to a dictatorship in 30 years and there is no democracy that grows from this, I think Bush will be very poorly regarded. Since I don't know the future, I can only say "I think" and present a scenario in which a certain view would come about. If the scenario doesn't happen, obviously the "I think" is not accurate.

Again, a lot of your questions are possibly coming from not actually reading closely what I am saying. When I say "I think" I am not saying "I know." I am giving an opinion. Furthermore, many of those "I thinks" are tied to scenarios that may or may not come to pass.

Well, I am certainly no wealth of information. I do however think there are some here who pretend to know more than they do. These questions have been asked before and I have answered them, probably not in as much detail as now.

Leadership has been a past and current study of mine, a bit of an obsession.. I have probably read more than 15,000 pages on the topic (both short form and books), as well as attended numerous conferences, conducted personal conversations with leaders, and listened to more audio mp3s, tapes, and cds than I can remember. I am currently taking a PhD level course on ministry leadership. So yes, I think I have some insight into leadership qualities and character and what it means to be a leader and how to carry it out. I am certainly not professing to be good at it.

My comments about Ken being ill-equipped stems from several things:
1. My belief that leaders have to make decisions before they know everything.
2. My belief that almost anyone can drive from hindsight.
3. Ken's record of flipflopping on these issues (many of you have been here long enough to have seen his track record on this.)

It is easy for us to sit back now with what we know and say we should have never done what we did. But at the time, no one actually knew. A decision had to be made on the proverbial 80% of information.

Many of the naysayers today (such as Ken) were on board back then because they believed what was being said. Today, they believe what is being said by the same people. The truth is that our information was and is limited. We don't sit in briefings, much less classified briefings, so therefore I am saying we should be hesitant to be dogmatic about certain things.

But in the end, I think Bush acted in good faith on the information available. I could be wrong. We will probably never know for sure.

Furthermore, we are not responsible for what happens with troops. Again, we don't get the briefings daily. We simply don't have the information. We are not sitting in the oval office.

This place reminds me of sports talk radio where you have constant callers talking about how a coach should have done this and that. I want to call in and say, "Man, there's a reason you are laying on the couch on Sunday afternoon, and punching rivets on Monday. If you knew as much as you think, someone would have hired you by now."


So we just need to keep that in mind.

 

But remember, it was first "brought out" by those not known for their truthfulness, their affection for teh Bush administration, or their knowledge of classified and detailed briefings. So sure, it's easy for me to sit here and say "The surge won't work," and then in a year, when perhaps it hasn't, I can stand up and say, "I was right a year ago." But if it works, I don't have to stand up and say "I was wrong." I think Bush said it when he was convinced it was true, not when "he got caught,"

"If" is the key word. Thanks for noticing that when SaturnNeptune apparently didn't. I don't know if peace is attainable. I don't think long term peace is attainable. I think there will always be tension. But we may be able to stem the open violence. Who knows ...

On your side of what? When I said "I can't think of ..." I meant it. I didn't mean there was nothing good. I didn't even mean that I had thought for 20 more minutes or 3 more days I couldn't have come up with something. At that moment, when I was writing, I couldn't think of anything good that a president of 30 years ago who is mostly forgotten did. I can't think of anything good Ford did. Does that show a train of thought as well?? Or does it show that it is simply not something I am currently thinking about.?

I don't know. And I am willing to bet you don't either. Which is exactly my point. You are making assertions about things you don't actually know about. I do think that there is a widespread belief that the Middle East is a place of great military instability, and the permanent presence of a military force there would be advantageous in terms of quick response. I don't have a problem with that. I am not sure why you would. We have had troops in that region long before this war started.

But I think we need to recognize that there are people who know more than we do.

Yes, that's part of the 30 years obviously. As for "hwo much time," again, I don't know. I don't have enough knowledge to make that assessment and I am willing to bet you don't either. They have "begun to stand up" in certain areas. As I understand it, there is progress being made on some of the benchmarks. So let's see in six months what is happening.

This is the old "pull the plug" argument. When a person is in ICU on life support, at some point you have to sit down with the doctors (the people who know the most) and make a decision. There is nothign easy there. I have sat with families while they made that decision.

So when do you "pull the plug" on Iraq? I don't know. Among the people who know the most, there are many who seem to think that it isn't time yet. I am willing to defer to those who know more and those who have the responsibility.

 

The mere fact that you would be willing to let our soldiers die for such a "democracy" is repulsive.

Don't even pretend at this point that you are libertaing Iraq. Don't even pretend. I would have much less objections about your foreign policy if you stopped lying about the so called democracy we're building.

 

Do you think our soldiers should be willing to die for our democracy? There are a lot of people here who "don't like" freedom of speech, religion, or whatever. If you read what I said, you can see that I am saying I don't care what they like. Their personal preferences on these matters make no difference to me. That is becuase I am driven by principle, not preference, particularly on something like this.

Why would you call me a liar? You misread something and then call me a liar? Don't you think we all deserve better than that?

One thing that we notice often on this board is a failure to read closely and think about what is being said. And you just did it.

Now, let's quote the whole part of I said, shall we: For me, I don't care whether Muslims like freedom of speech, religion, or whatever. I do care whether or not they will peacefully allow others to disagree with them.

So you can see that I don't care what they like; I care what they do. That is to say (what I already said), if they don't like freedom of speech or religion, I dont' care; but they must allow others to practice such freedom in peaceful disagreement.

That is exactly what happens in our republic everyday. We have senators and representatives (and people on this board) who disagree vehemently about what freedoms we should or should not have. We have people who don't like that we have certain freedoms and others who don't like that we don't have enough freedom. And we disagree without violence.

So, before calling me a liar, and before attacking my position, please understand it. Words means things and I typically choose them fairly carefully and intentionally and I expect them to be read the same way. I would appreciate it if you would spend some time thinking about what is said and what words mean rather than simply responding out of your gut from a misunderstanding.

 

I am not talking about leadership by CD, college courses, books, theories, and the like. It is leadership in the trenches that one makes daily based on gut decisions of right and wrong, decisions that make a difference in the course of a situation, and some times, life or death. It comes to you. You do not have to learn it, if you know your goal (for lack of a better term), and have it in your heart to accomplish it. It means caring more about others than yourself. It is not reacting to situations, it is anticipating them, and acting before a problem. In other words, it is being like Bush is not.

 

You were asking my qualification and so I offered a few. You insinuated I didn't know anything about theories or practice of leadership. Not only do I read and study leadership, I am constantly in the practice of it. So I am "in the trenches."

Actually, this is misguided. Leadership is not usually about gut decisions. Most will tell you it is about knowing the topic at hand through having studied the situation and the alternatives. So yes, you do have to learn to be a leader. You may have a naturally strong personality that commands people's attention, but don't confuse that with leadership. Leadership is influence. Good leadership is not gut reaction, but knowing the situation and knowing the alternatives and possible outcomes, and making decisions based on principle

Sometimes you have this pleasure; other times you do not.

The people who know Bush actually say differently than you do. Given my distrust of the press, I am disclined to condemn his leadership skills based on what is put forth as common knowledge.

 

There is nothing misguided about it. Your statements remind me of the higher level pencil pushers in the upper levels of any organization in their ivory towers, and are great with theory, but don't have a clue how to accomplish whatever the organization's mission is. Many people experience a disconnect between theory and practice.

No doubt you are a good leader in your field of work (ministry), but without working in the areas we have been discussing, it is impossible to move beyond an opinion based on a news report.

 

There is a lot misguided about it. "Gut feeling" is not a good decision making criteria in most cases, if any. Even when people say it's "gut feeling," it is usually based on years of experience.

Your reminder is seriously messed up. They demonstrate to me that you don't understand the issues of leadership, particularly in this area. If you think I have a disconnect between theory and practice in the area of leading the Iraq War, then you are correct. And you are right there with me. To be honest, you don't even remind me of someone who has a disconnect between theory and practice. It just doesn't seem as if you are even engaged in this, apart from making thinly veiled personal attacks about me and what my background and experience is.

This is my point exactly. it is what I have been saying on here for a very long time. The news reports that you, Ken, Ivon, Poncho, or whoever else are reading are extremely insufficient to make any sort of dogmatic statement. It's really not even enough to have an informed opinion about.

So to the point at hand, yes I know some about leadership and continuallly study it. And I, like you, Ken, or whoever else have not been in high level of government at the decision making level regarding going to war to strategic actions in war.

To repeat myself, we simply do not know enough to make the kind of statements that are being made here. There's an old, but relevant saying: Those who know, don't talk; those who talk, don't know. The talking around here is from people who don't know. Their info doesn't come from briefings, visits, classified information, etc. It comes from the Internet and news channels, filtered through their own biases.

 

That relevant statement of your's has been busted a number of times already by people that knew who talked. You and Ed must not have been listening very well. It don't get any better than from the horse's mouth PL. Best part is the guys that talk speak human languages so there is nothing lost in the translation from horse to human! :thumbsup:

Listen better to the horse from now on!

 

That is a fact. You do not know enough. Leadership from flapping jaws are a dime a dozen. Some people could not lead their dog to walk. If the shoe fits, wear it.

It is quite obvious from your posts you do not have a clue as to the function of government, the leadership involved, geopolitical ideas, or political science. Stick to your day job. You will fare much better. Of course, you can really cause no harm, as your opinion has no effect on national policy.

You have no idea what Ken's, mine or anyone else's background is. If you wanted to be involved in government, you should have chosen a different occupation. It seems odd to me you post much more about subjects like this which you know little about, more than your expertise, in the theological areas.

 

As you well know, Poncho, if you were to tell the whole truth rather than the half you are accustomed to, you would say that there was conflicting information, and yet everybody agreed at the beginning on the reasons for going to war. Books like you link too are probably like you ... half correct and built on grand conspiracy theories. Interesting that a guy who condemns "economic hit men" writes a book that I am sure he will make money off of. There is no doubt that there is corruption in politics. It's the nature of sinful man.

That's not leadership.

You need to read closer. You seem to think because someone disagrees with you that they don't have a clue. The fact is that my posts do demonstrate an understanding of the function of government, leadership, geopolitics, and political science. I do intend to "Stick to my day job" because it is eternally relevant, unlike jawing with you and Ken and Poncho which is nothing but pooled ignorance. We all get our ideas second and third hand from pundits (not from horses, Poncho).

I am commenting merely on what you say here on the BB. That's what I know. If you know more, then you certainly don't talk like it. We talk like people who have genuine disagreements over issues at times, but probably agree more often than not. We just dont' talk about those agreements.

I didn't know I gave up my right to be involved in government when I became a pastor. I didn't know I gave up my right to gain information and post on a discussion board about it. In fact, I didn't know I wasn't the government since people here keep telling me that the people are the government.

But the truth is that years ago in my college years, I was involved in politics at the county and state level. Had thoughts of continuing that line, but God called me to preach. I enjoy pastoring and preaching a lot more because it is actually meaningful and eternal. Being unable to preach for almost two months is killing me. I am reminded of how much I like what I do, and I think that is how God designed it.

I don't post about subjects I know little about, unless it is to ask questions, or make points about methods of argumentation. Remember, the fact that you and I disagree doesn't mean I know little about this topic. It means that we disagree. You assume you are correct. I think solid evidence has been given to the contrary by people much more qualified than I. To pretend I "know little about" this is misguided. I am no expert, and have never pretended to be. You aren't either, and neither is Ken (though both of you seem to pretend to be at times.) Again, remember that we get our information second and third hand and then process it through our biases. We are always inclined to think someone is wrong and uneducated because they differ from us. You really should disabuse yourself of that notion.

Most of my 18,000 posts are about theology, but I don't enjoy internet theology that much. I do post there from time to time, about as much as I do here, when I find an interesting topic. However, there aren't that many topics that interest me that I haven't posted on before.

Being principle driven rather than pragmatic, I am not sure that is a good standard. I disagree with where his leadership has taken us. I disagree with where Clinton's leadership took us. But there is no question that both men are tremendous leaders. The results haven't been "awful." They have been in most cases less than desirable for me, but that's a far cry from "awful."

Interestingly enough, I though about starting a thread on Ken Burns "The War" that was on last night. The footage is great. The storyline is pretty good. But I kept comparing our modern day discussion to WWII. I maintain my position that we would have lost WWII with the modern mindset that people like you seem to demonstrate. We were fighting a war thousands of miles away against people who really had done about all they could do. They were not really threatening our homeland in any significant way and there is question as to whether they could do much damage, though they did some through Uboats. Their economies were struggling in many cases and their militaries were fairly well stretched. We were losing multipled thousands of soldiers daily to brutal conditions, captors, fighting, and leadership decisions that turned out later to be wrong or misguided. These men didn't get rotations home

We were in that war because we did not have the foresight some years earlier to see what was on the horizon on both sides of the world. We did not have the diplomacy or will to get involved before it became a geopolitical conflict. Yes, I know there are differences, but perhaps the biggest difference is the softness of the American people at large. We are a fat, lazy people accustomed to materialism and consumerism. (And it is seen right here in the personal responses to those whose views get challenged. It is as if, "If I don't get my way in your mind, I will attack you and try to publicly embarrass you."

The Iraq War has lost about 4000 soldiers in 4 years. At that rate, we would have had to fight WWII for 400 years to lose the same amount of soldiers. I say that to say this: We need some perspective, and some longterm understanding of the issues at stake.

I tend to think that whatever mistakes were made getting in to Iraq, the long term issues mean that we stay, that we have to stay there and win. We have to get the government stable because there are issues years down the road that will be affected.