I'm probably not doing it justice. It made sense on his website. No link available.Originally Posted by chm2023
I'm probably not doing it justice. It made sense on his website. No link available.
Actually, you can't. That is a very difficult teaching to follow, though. Please remember, judge not the religion by it's aherents...judge the religion itself.
Bush talks a good game, but talks Christian values only when it suits him, and acts in a Christian manner even less often (that I've been exposed to). Having said that, you can't be Christian in your personal life, and not Christian in your professional life. That is the epitome of hypocricy. :hammer:
How can you explain the irrational? Good to have you in this forum, drk.
With so much bad news coming out of Iraq lately, it's not surprising that Americans find themselves sharply divided about the U.S. involvement there.
But I don't understand this statement:Saddam was killing radical, fundamentalist Muslim extremists ...?
Oh yeah, he probably killed a few extremists.
Is there any concern in this statement about the "common" people that Saddam had already killed before we intervened in Iraq, was in the process of killing at the time that we intervened in Iraq or would probably have killed in the future if we had not finally intervened in Iraq? The "common" Muslim, as the phrase came up in two of the earlier posts in this thread:Saddam's al-Anfal campaign in Iraq's Kurdish populated northern region.
Genocide.
http://www.answers.com/topic/al-anfal-campaign
Saddam's campaign to eliminate the Marsh Arabs from Iraq.
Genocide.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/marsharabs.html
Saddam's victims: How many common Muslims, Middle East workers, Arabs ... Vs. how many extremists?
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have turned towards more sensible national polices, on the whole, after they drew the conclusions that needed to be drawn from the 09/11 attack.
Iran and Syria are still problematic.
Oh really? The logical comparison would be between Iran and Syria on the one hand, and on the other hand, Iraq as it was under Saddam Hussein. Nothing could be more radical than Saddam's 1990 attempted annexation of Kuwait -- which was opposed by almost the entire international community. Nothing could be more radical than the genocides that Saddam had perpetrated, two of which I just referenced (above).
I think that Spexvet's latest posts are sometimes in conflict -- with Spexvet's previous posts.
That's a wrap!
Last edited by rinselberg; 07-20-2005 at 04:35 AM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle300368.ece
Brief quote
.......
Almost 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the two years of war and insurgency that began with the US-led invasion in March 2003. More than a third have died as a result of action by allied forces.
Almost 10,000 civilians killed by the military.
........
With the conflict still costing 34 civilian lives per day and the country descending into anarchy maybe it goes to show that you cant force peace.
Despite having the biggest bombs.
Rick
Well guessing someone's motives is always problematic. I think there may have been some need to avenge his dad's "unfinished business" with Saddam, but in the main I believe Bush is a simple man with little understanding of the complexities of the large issues of our time. Bad Arabs attacked us, Saddam is a bad Arab. Next case.
The issue of WMD--whose existence,contrary to popular opinion, was challenged at many levels pre-war--falls short of the point. The rationale that post 9/11 the US needed to be more aggressive in dealing militarily with armed enemies does not indicate a straight line to Iraq, it would more likely lead to North Korea or Iran or even Pakistan. (And of course the gross folly of responding in a traditional military manner to a terrorist attack should by now be self-evident).
If you look at what Bush said building up to war, he makes a connection (mostly by strong implication) that the obvious response to 9/11 was invading Iraq. So you get to that old Reagan Iran-Contra conundrum: is the president uninformed and dim, or is the president deliberately misleading the country? My choice is the former, the neo-cons who surrounded Bush guided him to the outcome they wanted. (If you doubt this, find some of Wolfowitz's et al pre 9/11 articles; they are very forthright about needing to take out Saddam and establish a beachhead for democracy). 9/11 wasn't a reason to invade Iraq, it was an excuse.
Last edited by chm2023; 07-20-2005 at 08:44 AM.
Being as Saddam was secular, his internal enemies were most likely Muslim fundamentalists, except for the Kurds. So, yes, he killed Muslim extremists.
Saving the "common" people is a laudable goal, but NOT the goal of the Bush administration. Are you forgetting that this is a WAR ON TERROR? It's not a WAR ON TYRANNY or a WAR ON MISTREATING THE COMMON PEOPLE YOU RULE. And the exploitation of common Muslims by Corporate America has certainly increased terrorism, not reduced it. So we've traded Saddam killing his own people for our military and civilian contractors being killed, and we still have not addressed terrorism, which originates in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
Maybe their governments have, but the London bombings were done by ethnic Pakistanis. Is that sensible policy?
No kidding.
Again - unacceptable, imperialism, tyranny. But that's not terrorism, and we're supposed to be waging a WAR ON TERRORISM.
Hopefully, my further explanation will cause you to reconsider.
I don't disagree with much of this, except that you underestimate Bush and reduce him to a cartoon. It's highly unlikely that he is a buffoon, and if you consider all the resources he has available to him, it's rather unthinkable. I realize he is a poor communicator, at best, and that lends itself to your illusion. (Compare JFKerry or Clinton or even Reagan.)
I agree that there was some "tenuous-ness" to the Iraq-9/11 linkage. I do think that to gather international and internal support that there was maximum dog-and-pony invoked. It may border on mislead, but not a frank "lie" as some suggest.
However, there is a bigger point. Saddam was a bad dude. He was no good for the region's long-term stability. He was an international outlaw. He was capable of trying anything. He needed to go. No one can argue with that, I don't think.
In retrospect (which we did not have at the time, obviously), Dad and Schwartzkopf should have taken down the regime, instead of doing what they were compelled to do, which was to have a limited campaign, with achievable objectives, yada, yada, yada. We did the minimum of what needed to be done, and that was "prudent" at the time. We really needed to finish the job, though, and I doubt that is argueable, either.
So yes, I do think Bush maximized the terrorist angle and that there was an ulterior, more conventional, military objective there. It has been accomplished, in a conventional, military sense. Take out the regime, put in an as-Western-friendly-as-possible new regime. It's ugly, but it's possible that it will work.
As to the international-relations thing, we should start to realize that the envy of the US standard of living and our overwhelming military capacity is going to polarize our relationships with other countries, regardless of our policies. The only sensical thing to do is to live up to our own (hopefully high) standards, as opposed to trying to make everyone else happy. It's not realistic.
Thanks, Spexvet.
Take me for example: Obviously, I'm a Christian to the max. Nonetheless, do I try to evangelize my co-workers and patients? I think not. They are coming to me for a service, and I do my job for them to the best of my abilities.
I do however try to function in a manner consistent with my ethics and values, and generally make "the Big Guy" happy.
As to the President, I assume he had to make a decision as to whether God would want him to run for office, and discharge the duties faithfully. Huge responsibility, no? Apparently GWB felt he should.
Now he is the Christian President of a non-Christian nation. He owes the nation leadership and not imposition of his values--that's not why GWB took the job, IMO.
Of course his viewpoint of the world is a Christian one. But again, he is not an emperor or dictator, so his viewpoint, while being dominant, is not without severe checks and balances. This government is pretty sturdy.
Contrarily, (not to stir the pot) I can guarantee you that the new Supreme Court Justice nominee is anti-abortion and that the law will be overturned, given the chance. That's another story.
So, which is it? W is not supposed to "impose" his Christian values on American foreign policy, but it's OK for him to impose them on domestic policy?
Thought-provoking question. I may need to backpedal.
I think that perhaps the better theory is that he probably doesn't personally believe that an individual Christian must die for his enemies, let alone try to create policy that is so pacifist that we all must die for our enemies. He would not reasonably run for president if he were supporting such extreme measures, IMO. I think he believes Christianity supports going to war. He may be incorrect, though, Biblically, according to the New Testament.
Upon further introspection, I guess that I would try to impose my viewpoint as well, if I were elected to office, for why would I want to run, anyway? It's axiomatic.
As to abortion, you can guess what he believes, there. I do think he will try to impose his viewpoint on that one. I think the best he'll get will be the reversal, which only goes so far as to leave it up to the states again. Then, it's majority rules. No individual right to abortion, but a collective right to abortion, if desired.
This really gets deeply into the form of our government. I think it is inheirent that a majority will rule in a republic/democracy and that's the nature of government. The majority has spoken when electing this president, like when Clinton was the country's choice.
But the Constitution is partly about protecting individual rights in a majority rule situation, and there has to be the balance on the abortion issue as to who's right is paramount: the "born"' or the "unborn". I understand that the Constitution hasn't recognized the unborn as people (it was probably inconceivable to them at the time). Currently, it favors the born's right over the unborn's.
But the balance has to be revisited. While I don't think many are "pro-abortion" as much as they are "pro-right-to-choose", should we all have a right to choose anything we want? Drugs? Sex? Abortion? I guess that one has to expand the question into what's good for our society as a whole...more freedom or more protection/restriction?
We have to face the same question on every issue, be it "homeland" (ugh) security, gun control, legalization of drugs, or even motorcycle helmet laws. Should we protect ourselves from ourselves? At the risk of imposing upon our freedom? Don't we have the freedom to do whatever we want?
I think the answer is: sometimes we should restrict freedom, other times we don't need to. If freedom leads to a good thing, then I'm all for freedom. If freedom leads to a bad thing, then the freedom itself is actually a bad thing, too. Freedom is in direct opposition to living in a society, actually. It's a zero-sum game. So, contrary to popular belief, freedom is not "all important" or "all good" or good in-and-of itself. We have to actually purchase protection with the currency of freedom.
Obviously, a thorny question. A thought: Is our culture heading in a good direction, currently? Are we willing to swing the balances towards restriction of rights and promotion of a "culture of life" and moral consequences?
With abortion, we need the protection. Society is rife with irresponsible sex, and murder, and death. (Seriously, why the morbid fascination with death on TV? "CSI": gross-out-fest that desensitizes. "Kill Bill"? And "death to America", by the way.)
Shouldn't we all work towards life, and peace? I think we all agree, there. Let's get the work done in Iraq and get home. Let's promote sexual responsibility so we don't have to allow more killing of babies. Let's take macabre shows off of TV and the cinema.
Last edited by drk; 07-20-2005 at 02:57 PM.
Even if a majority did not agree with your viewpoint?
But the majority of Americans want the freedom to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy.
As long as does not hurt a person, yes.
What's your definition of "good", and "bad"? It may not be the same as mine.
Freedom is almost always preferable. We seem to allow ourselves to do the right thing, and punish ourselves when we don't. For example, we don't put speed governors on our cars.
Again: What is "good"? My "good" may not be the same as yours. And whose morals? Maybe you want to go Orwellian, and force everyone to voice the opinion that Big Brother is "double plus good".
IMHO, a "culture of life" has to include "quality of life". As long as some people live in opulence while others live in squalor, there is not a "culture of life". Why bring someone into the world to be sold into slavery, or keep them in the world to continue physical life with no brain activity? What culture of life endorses war?
And just how is the invasion of Iraq working towards life and peace?
What is "sexual responsibility"? Considering that reproduction is a biological imperitive achieved only though having sex (and it feels good, too ;) ), abstinence is absurd. It just doesn't work. Yet those who want to reduce abortions will not educate our children and provide them with birth control. Help me understand this.
Spex, you oversimplify life. Can you explain how we are to have a society that works with everyone having maximum freedom?
Also, if everyone is allowed to have their own definitions of good and bad, we'll never get anywhere.
Whether you know it or not, you are a classic "postmodernist".
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Maybe that's why we're here.
I'll tell you what. Since we can't all be allowed to have our own definitions of good and bad, how 'bout everybody taking on my definitions? ;) It's ok with me, really.
<Sarcasm font> Well, then Spex, if everyone has their own definition of good and bad, then what I would do unto you might be considered bad when I meant it to be good! <end sarcastic font>
What we need in this country, like we need in any group, is COMMON VALUES. How to achieve this is beyond me.
But, common values lead to common goals lead to happy results.
This individualism, multiculturalism, postmodernism has to GO!
Yes! Yes! "One People, One Nation, One Leader! One People..."
I'm a little shocked to read that you think that "individualism" is a bad thing - probably the signature American value?
I had been under the impression that Americans actually had more common values than may be evident in the political world lately, but I get less sure when I read this sort of thing; I wonder how many people share these sentiments.
So, liberty and individualism are bad things. Sigh.
Does liberty and individualism work in your office? Between you and the Mrs? On the battlefield? In the boardroom?
The far, far better way is self-denial and cooperation.
We've taken the concept of liberty and individualism way too far, way farther than originally intended. This is common sensical. When it gets to the point that we are unable to agree on anything, we are ready for fragmentation. Mark my words: happened before and it can happen again.
Does that sound too "right-wing"? Don't look at it in a political sense, but in a sociological sense. What makes a group of people function as a unit? Extreme diversity or extreme cohesiveness? Cohesiveness. What makes life more interesting? Diversity. What's best? A balance.
But what do you need when there's work to be done? Cohesiveness. We are at war, aren't we?
BTW, my opinon of the real signature American values are productivity, moral decency, discipline, optimism, and creativity. That's why we're the number one economic, political, scientific, and militarily advanced civilization the world has ever seen. Let's not forget how we got here!
Last edited by drk; 07-21-2005 at 01:51 PM.
Commercial enterprise and marriage are completely distinct from social policy as implemented through the power of the state.
Individualism is not the opposite of cooperation; nor is liberty the opposite of self-denial.
Cooperation is not possible without liberty, in the absence of which it is indistinguishable from tyranny. Self-denial as a personal choice may be virtuous; as social policy, it is oppression.
You suggested earlier that Spexvet had nothing to fear from the religious right, but you're making me very afraid. Mullah Omar could easily have written what you have written.
Yes, I understand, but what is the point of any state, if not to enforce restrictions? Is it only to grant liberties?
No, a state's main function is to enforce law and order, and provide for the common defense, etc. No higher-order function such as freedom of speech, worship, (insert cliche here) can be sustained without the main function.
I guess the disagreement is in assessing the current state of America. Are we in good shape, or at risk? I'm feeling pessimistic about such things as divorce, too many kids in child care, violence in the culture, obsession with all things material, corruption in government, etc., let alone threats from the outside.
When "weapons of mass destruction" become more commonplace, can a society as open as ours survive? I'm sorry to be so negative as to say "no". I feel like I'm living in a gated community with 10,000 screaming "peasants" with pitchforks beating on the locks.
The disparity is too great between the developed countries and the developing countries. I'm fearful that Pakistan, India, China, other developing major population centers will find ways to take us down unconventionally. I don't think we will ultimately have what it takes to pull through, because we are not unified. And forgive my religious peculiarity, I don't think we will be favored by God enough to be able to pull off any Six-Day-War-type stuff.
States do not grant liberties to people; States have no natural rights at all. People delegate their natural rights to states. The best statement of the purpose for which they do this is found in the preamble to our Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
I rather doubt that these elements were ranked in order of importance.
If murder is the measure of society's health (as you suggested in an earlier post), we had an excellent run from 1980 to 2000; during those two decades - presumably the period during which this moral death-spiral has occurred - the murder rate fell by almost half. (See, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm.)I guess the disagreement is in assessing the current state of America. Are we in good shape, or at risk? I'm feeling pessimistic about such things as divorce, too many kids in child care, violence in the culture, obsession with all things material, corruption in government, etc., let alone threats from the outside.
Maybe people were too busy having sex to bother with killing each other.
drk, here's another article you may find interesting and horrifying:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=174508
As open as ours? Yes. Of course, contrary to the president's reasoning, terrorism can indeed function more easily in a free society than it can in a police state. But it's not our openness that inspires the suicide murders. Wanna be safer? Let's stop killing people we don't absolutely have to.
In any case, I'm not sure I would worry about the masses from Pakistan, India, and China storming your castle. It's just as likely you'll be working for them.
You are so right in paragraph #1. I think there is something to the order, I really do..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks