Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

Lies

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> NEW! - Political Forum - Scripture and Christianity in Politics

Author

Message

Pondering
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1506

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

How about troop casualty levels. Those stats are available. Surely we must be able to find out if they've decreased since the surge started...

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8218

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject:

I found some detailed statistics: http://icasualties.org/oif/ If anything, the number of casualties in April is MUCH higher than in previous months. _________________ "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal "...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..." -Steven Weinberg "I would bless my children with your destruction instead." -Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Pondering
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1506

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:24 am Post subject:

hmm...well, the average is higher, but we're only half-way thru the month.... and this is why the government doesn't want to get into bean counting.... Historically, casualties are very low...each one is personal tragedy, but it's a bad metric to use. To those opposed to the invasion (in the first place) ANY death is too high a price to pay. To those that support spreading democractic governments in the MidEast, we'll support a higher "price". I'm curious what number of dead do you consider "acceptable loss"? How about for WWII, at what number should we have negotiated with Hitler/Japan for peace in order to "bring 'em home?" Remember, in WWII, troops were deployed "for the duration".... I think the media/Dem drumbeat of "American overwhelmingly want the US out of Iraq" is bunk...if it were true, Congress would cut funding, forcing the Presidents hand. They haven't done that because, despite the grumblings about "moral conviction" they know they'll bounced out of office come next election cycle.... George Washington warned about political parties in his farewell address...he was pretty smart dude. If you'd like to check out a "Good News" version of his farewell address (updated the language from the 18th to 21st century) click here _________________ Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians" Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8218

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:51 am Post subject:

Pondering wrote:

Historically, casualties are very low...each one is personal tragedy, but it's a bad metric to use.

I think it's probably a good metric to use when trying to get a read on how active the insurgency currently is. More U.S. casualties means more insurgent activity. What's wrong with this reasoning?

Pondering wrote:

I'm curious what number of dead do you consider "acceptable loss"?

I don't really think that this is the right question. I think that freedom and democracy are certainly things worth dying for, and this is one of the things I respect so much about American ideals (and why it confuses me so much that you guys aren't freaking out about the Patriot Act). With Hitler and Imperial Japan, this ideal came into play and the West willingly sacrificed the lives of many soldiers because they were looking at the bigger picture.

Iraq is totally different. It isn't a nice clear case of totalitarianism vs. freedom and democracy. America didn't attack Iraq because totalitarianism in Iraq was threatening the free world (as was the case with Germany and Japan). There were all sorts of other motivations for attacking Iraq:

1. Gaining control of its oil resources.
2. Getting some real estate in the region (i.e. a big military base) from which to launch attacks.
3. Expanding the power of the American Empire.
4. Sending a message to uppity little dictators everywhere not to mess with America.
5. Set up a capitalistic utopia in Iraq where American companies can make a lot of money.

In other words, the motivations behind the Iraq war were not 'pure'.

In the case of WWII, how many casualties were acceptable? I guess the answer is, "The minimum number that is necessary."

In the case of Iraq, I don't know. Is it ok to sacrifice the lives of your soldiers just to expand the empire and make sure that some very rich people become even richer?

Pondering wrote:

George Washington warned about political parties in his farewell address...he was pretty smart dude. If you'd like to check out a "Good News" version of his farewell address (updated the language from the 18th to 21st century) click here

Well, then it sounds like George Washington agrees with me, because I think that political parties are evil and that they hurt America. Country should come before party, and currently it doesn't.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:10 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

That facts are... bombing are down... attacks are down... and people are starting to dare to believe their government can protect them from these thugs.

These are facts, are they? Do you have any hard statistics to back up this claim?

SURE.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8218

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:02 am Post subject:

I hope you're right, but I am very suspicious of that web page. For one, it is very poorly referenced. Is he just making those numbers up?

But secondly, he says stuff like this:

Quote:

I am a professor at a major research university, a registered Democrat, a liberal by some measures, but a radical conservative relative to the large majority of my colleagues.

I guess this is true if by 'some measures' he's talking about Hitler. Just poke around the web page a bit; you'll see that the guy is EXTREME right-wing.

Here is a better source of information for Iraqi civilian casualties:

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

The number of civilian casualties in February was 1381. The number of casualties in March was 1674. I'm doing my Ph.D in what is basically mathematics, and I can certify that this is an increase in casualties.

So whether or not the surge is working is highly questionable.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Pondering
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1506

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:26 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

I think it's probably a good metric to use when trying to get a read on how active the insurgency currently is. More U.S. casualties means more insurgent activity. What's wrong with this reasoning?

No...it's a metric for how effective the insurgents are in causing casualties...we could impose Martial Law...disarm the entire population, enact a closed market welfare system and do lots of other things that would minimize US casualties while doing nothing that actually helps build a free and independent state....exposure to the risks presented by those that oppose a free and independent state means that some US folks will be killed/injured...and lots of civilian Iraqis... You're looking at the problem wrongly IMO.

P1234567890 wrote:

[that you guys aren't freaking out about the Patriot Act).

Yeah...that makes me nervous. I generally go with the idea that the folks that operate under the Act are generally good, honest, citizens...Is there opportunity for corruption and abuse...absolutely.

I would also say your not looking at the big picture...

Militant Islam (21st Century totalitarianism) is on the rise...part of the problem is that this isn't a War on Terror anymore than WWII was a war on Sneak Attacks or Gas Chambers...Until we name it, we won't get anywhere...and the PC police are a huge part of the problem...that's why Europe is becoming Eurabia (that and a declining birth rate)...but I digress...

Iraq seemed like the easiest target to "change" the face of Middle East (Arab) governments, so in response point by point:

P1234567890 wrote:

There were all sorts of other motivations for attacking Iraq:

1. Gaining control of its oil resources.

and that's why all the contracts so far have gone to non-US firms? pu-leeze. The US the 3rd largest producer of oil. Iraq was 4th at it's peak....c'mon. That's bunk and you know it. It IS about stability in the region and Sadaam challenged that stability at least twice (Iran-Iraq War and Invasion of Kuwait)...

P1234567890 wrote:

2. Getting some real estate in the region (i.e. a big military base) from which to launch attacks.

mmmm...maybe. Probably some desire to get out of Saudi Arabia (for all the wrong reasons)...and yes, it does put alot of pressure on Syria and Iran...so....maybe.

P1234567890 wrote:

3. Expanding the power of the American Empire.

You're kidding right? Explain this "Empire" again?

P1234567890 wrote:

4. Sending a message to uppity little dictators everywhere not to mess with America.

You say this like it's a bad thing...

P1234567890 wrote:

5. Set up a capitalistic utopia in Iraq where American companies can make a lot of money.

again...you say this like it's a bad thing...if it's a free market economy (and not a restrictive Empire - which it's not) that's bad why?

P1234567890 wrote:

In the case of Iraq, I don't know. Is it ok to sacrifice the lives of your soldiers just to expand the empire and make sure that some very rich people become even richer?

no it's not...and if you think this is what it's about, then we'll probably never agree....that's not what I think this is about.

The first Gulf War was about Oil. I'm ok with that...Did Bush-41 wrap a flag around it...yes. But I recognize the global economic impact that demanded our action...

This war has actually been much more about ideals than economics...probably part of the reason why the occupation/transition were so badly planned.

Doesn't mean it's not worth winning. It took the US 10 years to form a functioning government at the end of our Revolution. We fought a Civil War less than 80 years after that.....Nation building is hard n'stuff....especially democratic ones.

P1234567890 wrote:

Well, then it sounds like George Washington agrees with me, because I think that political parties are evil and that they hurt America. Country should come before party, and currently it doesn't.

now here...we agree Wink

_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8218

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:25 am Post subject:

Pondering wrote:

Since the surge started, U.S. casualties are up, Iraqi civilian casualties are up, and there has been a major bomb attack in the Green Zone. In fact, it was in the cafeteria of the PARLIAMENT!!! A reporter was there and wrote about what he saw. It's a really interesting piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041202455_pf.html

Do you honestly think that the surge is working??? If anything, the facts seem to suggest the exact opposite: DESPITE the surge, the insurgency is getting stronger and more successful.

Pondering wrote:

Yeah...that makes me nervous. I generally go with the idea that the folks that operate under the Act are generally good, honest, citizens...Is there opportunity for corruption and abuse...absolutely.

Very much like physics has the universal law of gravitation, so do governments adhere to the universal law of corruption and abuse: if a government CAN do evil things, then it absolutely 100% without any doubt will; it's simply a matter of time.

Pondering wrote:

Militant Islam (21st Century totalitarianism) is on the rise...part of the problem is that this isn't a War on Terror anymore than WWII was a war on Sneak Attacks or Gas Chambers...Until we name it, we won't get anywhere...and the PC police are a huge part of the problem...that's why Europe is becoming Eurabia (that and a declining birth rate)...but I digress...

You're preaching to the choir here; you know that I agree with you that Islam is evil and must be stopped from spreading. Our disagreement comes on HOW to do this. You seem to think that the Bush Administration / Neocon way of doing this is the correct approach, but I think they're doing a TERRIBLE job.

Pondering wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

1. Gaining control of its oil resources.

All of the oil contracts have gone to non-U.S. firms? Please cite.

As for your claim that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil, how can you possibly say this? For one, how could the first Gulf War have been about oil, and this second one was not???

Oil is a MAJOR strategic resource that ALL countries want. How could it possibly be true that it didn't influence the decisions being made in Washington???

Pondering wrote:

mmmm...maybe. Probably some desire to get out of Saudi Arabia (for all the wrong reasons)...and yes, it does put alot of pressure on Syria and Iran...so....maybe.

Getting U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia was Osama's main motivation behind the Sept. 11th attacks. And America obliged him and simply pulled the troops out. I don't get it. But as you point out, those bases had to go somewhere.

Pondering wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

3. Expanding the power of the American Empire.

You're kidding right? Explain this "Empire" again?

What's to explain? The U.S. is an empire in every sense of the word, just like the British empire or Roman empires were empires. The sun literally never sets on American land. You guys have military bases literally around the entire planet, and you have the ability to project your military power to literally any point on the globe. Your economy is based on resource acquisition from other countries and is completely integrated in the world economy. You routinely use military force to solve conflicts around the entire planet. America's influence has no borders.

Call it a superpower or empire or whatever; that's what America is.

Pondering wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

4. Sending a message to uppity little dictators everywhere not to mess with America.

You say this like it's a bad thing...

It sort of is a bad thing. Remember, WWII was a 'morally pure' conflict in that it involved one side which was all about freedom and democracy, and the other, which was evil and believed in totalitarianism.

Giving the smackdown to third-rate dictators is not a grand or morally pure motivation; it is totally petty when compared to the motivations behind the epic struggle that was WWII.

Pondering wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

5. Set up a capitalistic utopia in Iraq where American companies can make a lot of money.

again...you say this like it's a bad thing...if it's a free market economy (and not a restrictive Empire - which it's not) that's bad why?

Again, it's not a righteous cause like WWII was. You think it's ok for U.S. troops to be dying just so that Baghdad can have a McDonald's on every corner?

Would you be willing to sacrifice the lives of soldiers for U.S. corporate interests?

Pondering wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

In the case of Iraq, I don't know. Is it ok to sacrifice the lives of your soldiers just to expand the empire and make sure that some very rich people become even richer?

no it's not...and if you think this is what it's about, then we'll probably never agree....that's not what I think this is about.

It's about a lot of things, and many of them are not righteous or pure; that's my point. WWII was primarily about one thing, and it was righteous and pure.

Pondering wrote:

This war has actually been much more about ideals than economics...probably part of the reason why the occupation/transition were so badly planned.

Agreed; the Neocons are hard-core idealists, and their black-and-white way of looking at things seriously impaired their ability to plan and execute the occupation.

Pondering wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

Well, then it sounds like George Washington agrees with me, because I think that political parties are evil and that they hurt America. Country should come before party, and currently it doesn't.

now here...we agree Wink

Actually, I think that you and I fundamentally agree on a lot of things.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Pondering
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1506

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:03 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

Do you honestly think that the surge is working??? If anything, the facts seem to suggest the exact opposite: DESPITE the surge, the insurgency is getting stronger and more successful.

But not more popular...I think we're now fighting a quasi war with Iran inside Iraq. Al-Sadr (from Iran) called for the Mahdi Army to pick up its arms...it was they who led the most recent "US OUT" protest in Basra...and the media jumps everytime

As for the "inside bombing"...yeah,it was a set-up. Probably one of Al-Sadr's men (his party has a number of parliament seats) got the guy access and booom...up comes the press and down go the polls. Score 1 for the Islamists PR campaign.

In Anbar province, the Sunni have had enough and are actively fighting Al-Queda because they got tired of their own people getting killed....average Iraqis are out shopping, selling, going to school...trying to live a normal life...evil dudes kill them to undermine our national will.

Here's the deal...what do you seriously think will happen if we leave?

P1234567890 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Militant Islam (21st Century totalitarianism) is on the rise...

you know that I agree with you that Islam is evil and must be stopped from spreading. Our disagreement comes on HOW to do this. You seem to think that the Bush Administration / Neocon way of doing this is the correct approach, but I think they're doing a TERRIBLE job.

in some ways I do too...First thing I'd do is blockade the Gulf, hammer the be-jeezus out of Iran and Syria and seize Mecca and Medina...I'd take their magic rock hostage and put it on a rocket to the moon if one more American is killed in Iraq...Total War is ugly...but it works. I'd then seize or kill every mullah, imam and other potentate that spreads islamist ideas....then we'd get down to the dirty work.

But that's why I'll never be benevolent dictator Wink

There are other ways...they start with a show of strength politically, a unified Western front and an end to appeasement in both domestic and foreign policy.

The Arab understands the (Muslim) parable of the weak horse and the strong horse...Which one do you think the US is right now?

P1234567890 wrote:

All of the oil contracts have gone to non-U.S. firms? Please cite.

CNN slant of "big evil oil company looming" opinion in the article...but facts are facts.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

P1234567890 wrote:

As for your claim that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil, ... how could the first Gulf War have been about oil, and this second one was not???

Oil is a MAJOR strategic resource that ALL countries want. How could it possibly be true that it didn't influence the decisions being made in Washington???

fair one...the first war was specifically about "getting the spice to flow"...the second was about stability (looooong term) in the region, not about tomorrows supply...

P1234567890 wrote:

Bunk...he's been calling for US/Israeli destruction since 1982. His first fatwa was published in 1996. Do not believe all that you read on liberal webs...they have an agenda and an intent to influence....its pacifist and it's bunk.

He does say "the latest and greatest" insult was the occupation of Saudi Arabia, but he has called for our destruction for much longer and points to Lebanan (1982) as one of the sources...

P1234567890 wrote:

Superpower yes....Empire? No.

Empire: a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control.

We are not an empire. Yes we have bases all over and can project power anywhere...sometimes that "power projection" takes the form of helping those struck by calimity...sometimes that "power projection" takes the form of stopping warlords from stealing food intended for famine victims....jiminy christmas. I think I get it...it's plain old fashioned jealousy!

Whose economy is not based on "resource acquisition" from other countries? Fine...Canada is an Empire then. India is an Empire. Japan is an Empire (again? uh oh!)...EVERYONE's economy is integrated into the world economy! oy veh!

P1234567890 wrote:

uhhh..give me strength...so...let evil reign so long as I get my MTV?

P1234567890 wrote:

What!? How about freedom of thought, expression and self-determination? Those are the other things that come along with democratic societies and free market economies you know....you know, like the kind that you and I live in?

P1234567890 wrote:

It's about a lot of things, and many of them are not righteous or pure; that's my point. WWII was primarily about one thing, and it was righteous and pure.

You missed my post from the 1946 newspaper about the "evil" black market dealing American G.I.'s...I agree that WWII was righteous...but it was a human endeavor and was certainly not pure...graft, theft, rape, murder, cowardice, war profiteering...all that happened then too. We just don't want or need to talk about it.

P1234567890 wrote:

Actually, I think that you and I fundamentally agree on a lot of things.

True...and I think you're a good person Smile

Heck..I'm an idealist, a huge one really...I guess I'm just tempered with enough cynicism and realism to know that not everyone in the game is.... Smile

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8218

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject:

Pondering wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

Do you honestly think that the surge is working??? If anything, the facts seem to suggest the exact opposite: DESPITE the surge, the insurgency is getting stronger and more successful.

The source that Trinity cited a few posts ago said this:

Quote:

One of the reasons why the surge is working is that Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army has decided to cooperate with our efforts. I've known this for a long time, but it appears to be news to some:

So what's it going to be? Is Al Sadr helping or hurting the surge? We're clearly getting a lot of contradictory information out of Iraq, and we're getting even more contradictory opinions over here.

How can you have any faith in what you're hearing from over there?

Pondering wrote:

Here's the deal...what do you seriously think will happen if we leave?

Instant civil war, with a tremendous amount of human suffering associated with it. Iran will make a move to try to swallow up Iraq, and the Shiite population there will more or less welcome them. The Sunnis will call for help, which will bring other Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia charging into the fray.

I've got no idea if this is actually how it will play out, but it's definitely a possibility.

Pondering wrote:

Sounds like a good plan. Where do I sign up?

Wouldn't that be an ironic twist? We hold the Ka'aba hostage? Oh the irony! I bet it would work, too.

Pondering wrote:

But that's why I'll never be benevolent dictator Wink

There are other ways...they start with a show of strength politically, a unified Western front and an end to appeasement in both domestic and foreign policy.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Pondering wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

Pondering, I don't get any of my arguments from the web. My claim that Osama's main beef was that there are U.S. soldiers on Islam's holy ground came from one of the world's foremost experts on radical Islam and Osama Bin Laden in particular. He gave a talk here at the University of Toronto a few years ago. This guy was a serious scholar about it; he speaks and reads Arabic, and he personally listened to every single Bin Laden tape ever put out going back many, many years.

He explained quite clearly and convincingly that Bin Laden always gives a 'laundry list' of reasons to hate America, but getting the troops out of Saudi Arabia has always been his top priority.

Pondering wrote:

No, mostly American projection of power comes in the form of direct military intervention or the corruption and undermining of sovereign countries' internal politics. Think Panama, Nicaragua, Chile, Greece, etc.

Pondering wrote:

Whose economy is not based on "resource acquisition" from other countries? Fine...Canada is an Empire then. India is an Empire. Japan is an Empire (again? uh oh!)...EVERYONE's economy is integrated into the world economy! oy veh!

...Except that Canada is basically just a vassal state of the American Empire.

The reason why America is often referred to as an Empire is because it controls most of the governments around the planet. There are a few exceptions such as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc., but if America wants something done, then it usually happens. You guys have complete control of the planet!

Now, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing; you could do A LOT worse than having America in charge. But if you guys aren't an empire, then neither was Britain!

Pondering wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

If you look at the last 50 years, the claim that America has invaded evil countries in order to establish democracies is just patently false. If this were true, then you guys would have invaded Iraq during the 80s, and you'd be invading Saudi Arabia right now!

American foreign policy is not about spreading freedom and democracy. America wants freedom for itself, but is very happy restricting the freedoms of others. Chile is a fantastic example; you guys literally overthrew a democratically-elected government there just because it was too left-wing, and you put an evil dictator in power. And you did pretty much exactly the same thing in Greece!

So don't talk about spreading freedom and democracy; that's not what American foreign policy is about; it never has been.

Pondering wrote:

I don't mean pure in that sense; I mean that the motivation behind it was pure. America saw evil dictatorships and killed them.

Compare that with the Iraq war; it's all about making money, and always was. Just look at Dick Cheney. When he became VP, his Halliburton stock was put into a blind trust, and was worth like $40 million. Since then the stock price has quadrupled, and now he's worth at least $160 million. You don't think that this affected his demeanor and motivations during strategy talks? You don't think that he realized that a war in Iraq was going to make him a VERY, VERY rich man?

That's what I'm talking about... Thousands of U.S. soldiers literally died and lost limbs at least in part to make Cheney a richer man!

And then think about the B.S. and lies involved in selling the war to the American people...

The Iraq War is just so much more slimy and evil and selfish and greedy than WWII ever was!

Pondering wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

Actually, I think that you and I fundamentally agree on a lot of things.

True...and I think you're a good person Smile

Heck..I'm an idealist, a huge one really...I guess I'm just tempered with enough cynicism and realism to know that not everyone in the game is.... Smile

Here's what I want: Everyone on the planet to live in a democracy in which they are free and in which there is a free press which is not beholden to ANYONE. Eliminate all poverty, racism, sexism, etc. , and establish governments which maximize freedom and self-determination.

I guess that makes me an idealist as well...
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

Pondering, I don't get any of my arguments from the web. My claim that Osama's main beef was that there are U.S. soldiers on Islam's holy ground came from one of the world's foremost experts on radical Islam and Osama Bin Laden in particular. He gave a talk here at the University of Toronto a few years ago. This guy was a serious scholar about it; he speaks and reads Arabic, and he personally listened to every single Bin Laden tape ever put out going back many, many years.
He explained quite clearly and convincingly that Bin Laden always gives a 'laundry list' of reasons to hate America, but getting the troops out of Saudi Arabia has always been his top priority.

Bin Laden got his fame during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. A Saudi Royal fighting along side of Pakistani sheep farmer was quite amazing. With this he gained power and notoriety… His purpose for going to Afghanistan was to help eject the infidel Russians with his Islamic brothers.

This fame followed him after the war in 1987… back to Saudi Arabia. When the King allowed our troops on ‘Holy Soil’ (sand) that was the same as Russians in Kabul… and an infidel is an ifidel is an ifidel. It gave him, and his ilk, just another excuse to hate America. Our support of Israel was already a reason to hate us… we just made it personal… and allowed him to use our presence as an excuse.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

45degreeN
King Kong

Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2658

Location: Salem Oregon

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject:

P123... will all of the generals who turn down this "war czar post" be damaging the morale of the troops. Like anyone else who disagrees with Bush also demoralizes the troops. Well more than half the country must be demoralizing those pitiful troops. Having to stay three months longer only energizes them right? _________________ My boss is a Jewish carpenter. Read the www.Christian-Thinktank.com

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8218

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject:

dim12trav wrote:

P123... will all of the generals who turn down this "war czar post" be damaging the morale of the troops.

Like anyone else who disagrees with Bush also demoralizes the troops. Well more than half the country must be demoralizing those pitiful troops.

Having to stay three months longer only energizes them right?

The whole 'demoralizing the troops argument' is ridiculous. If I was a soldier, the number one thing demoralizing me would be the fact that I'm risking my life in Iraq, and wondering why the hell I'm over there. I'd be asking questions like, "At the start of his term in power, Dick Cheney had $40 million worth of Halliburton stock. The war has quadrupled its value, and now he's got $160 million... Why am I putting my life on the line so that that rich loser becomes richer?"

...That would demoralize me.

That aside, evil governments since the beginning of time have been using the 'demoralizing the troops' argument. It's one of the reasons the Nazis gave for executing Sophie Scholl and friends.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Pondering
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1506

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:45 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

It would because you already have an irrational (IMO) hatred of Cheney and a fear of corporation...

Here's what demoralizes troops. The House has not presented an emergency funding authorization to the President. The proposed bill, which the President has already told them he'll veto, contains $40 Billion (with a B ) in pork unrelated to the war...

Then, they go on Easter recess (still no bill to the President)...During said recess, the Speaker travels to countries known to support terrorism and talks out the wrong end. Meanwhile her cohorts travel to Key West, Belgium, The Caribbean and "all points nice"...at taxpayer expense....

At least the Republicans were taking lobbyist $$$ when they did this....were the influence peddling? probably...but they weren't stealing from me Smile

Article on latest Spring Fever Fling here

Meanwhile, the SecDef directed the Navy and Air Force to transfer $800 million each ($1.6 Billion) from their budgets to the Army in order to cover operating cost....
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8218

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:12 am Post subject:

Pondering wrote:

It would because you already have an irrational (IMO) hatred of Cheney and a fear of corporation...

The guy made $120 million dollars from the Iraq war... You don't think that's a HEINOUS conflict of interest? You don't think that influenced his decision making when it came to the war?

When he said that we had to attack Iraq, how can we possibly know whether or not his entire motivation was just to enrich himself? You're just going to give him the benefit of the doubt?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> NEW! - Political Forum - Scripture and Christianity in Politics	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4