Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hedgehog on February 01, 2007, 06:11:52 PM
-
A recent post by Beach made me think of especially a phrase in Matthew(Whoa!! :o)...
GWB claims he is an active Christian, also that he's feeling the Lord, he also claims he reads the Bible a lot. Assuming he's telling the truth, this makes for some interesting take on Bush's War On Terror, and his general foreign policy.
Try for a moment to forget whether or not you are a Christian, or if you support Bush or not.
Here are words from the scripture that Bush reads.
You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall hit you on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew)
You have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew)
An Atheist, or a Jew eg, wouldn't have words like this to live by.
But Bush, claiming he is an active Christian, does.
So my question is, how can Bush claim to be an active Christian, if he doesn't try to follow the words of the scripture?
I mean, where is the love for the terrorists? The love for the "enemies" of USA, that he's repeatedly spoken of?
I'm not saying he should show love for terrorists.
But then, he shouldn't claim to be a Christian, or that he leads a Christian life.
Be consequent.
-Hedge
-
Hed brother fundamental christianity, they have their own bibel, the one that says: Tho shall not murder (not kill, but murder)
-
IRAN is begging us to have peace talks. Syria is begging us for talks. North Korea is begging us for talks. We refuse. Would Jesus refuse peace talks when they might avoid war?
-
IRAN is begging us to have peace talks. Syria is begging us for talks. North Korea is begging us for talks. We refuse. Would Jesus refuse peace talks when they might avoid war?
What? Do you actually believe that?
Iran, led by their crazed dictator, is threatening to wipe Israel off the map. In case you forgot, they're an ally of ours.
Syria aided and abetted Saddam during his stint as leader of Iraq. They also want Israel destroyed.
North Korea just went atomic. They'd probably nuke your backyard tomorrow if they thought they could.
Why you try and align, then defend such nations is a mystery to me. Do you desire to live there?
-
A recent post by Beach made me think of especially a phrase in Matthew(Whoa!! :o)...
GWB claims he is an active Christian, also that he's feeling the Lord, he also claims he reads the Bible a lot. Assuming he's telling the truth, this makes for some interesting take on Bush's War On Terror, and his general foreign policy.
Try for a moment to forget whether or not you are a Christian, or if you support Bush or not.
Here are words from the scripture that Bush reads.
You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall hit you on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew)
You have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew)
An Atheist, or a Jew eg, wouldn't have words like this to live by.
But Bush, claiming he is an active Christian, does.
So my question is, how can Bush claim to be an active Christian, if he doesn't try to follow the words of the scripture?
I mean, where is the love for the terrorists? The love for the "enemies" of USA, that he's repeatedly spoken of?
I'm not saying he should show love for terrorists.
But then, he shouldn't claim to be a Christian, or that he leads a Christian life.
Be consequent.
-Hedge
Bush does love the terrorists. That is why he is going after them. He wants to kill them all so they can go get their 17 virgins or whatever it is they get.
-
Iran, led by their crazed dictator, is threatening to wipe Israel off the map. In case you forgot, they're an ally of ours.
So? How many Israeli troops are on the ground in Afghanistan and iraq at the moment? Yikes.
Syria aided and abetted Saddam during his stint as leader of Iraq. They also want Israel destroyed.
So? We've never done any shady shit? We need them under control, and negotiations can do that. please tell me you're not using a grudge to prevent future diplomacy.
North Korea just went atomic. They'd probably nuke your backyard tomorrow if they thought they could.
And what has Bush done to stop them? They're 5 years ahead of Iran in terms of nuke development. They fired nukes at hawaii on the 4th of July. They set off a nuke and gave China 20 min warning and us, zero. I haven't noticed your string of "attack N Korea threads". Why is this?
Why you try and align, then defend such nations is a mystery to me. Do you desire to live there?
I'm not defending shit. I'm telling you that anyone with a brain - and all of our leaders throughout history - have attempted to employ DIPLOMACY before they started dropping bombs. The standard line is "but, but, but they're evil". But Russia was plenty evil, even setting up nukes 40 miles from US soil. Skipping diplomacy there would have led to WWIII.
If you were in JFK's shoes, would you have negotiated with the Russians? Or just launched nukes?
-
IRAN is begging us to have peace talks. Syria is begging us for talks. North Korea is begging us for talks. We refuse. Would Jesus refuse peace talks when they might avoid war?
Yet Iran ignores UN sanctions and sides with Chavez, Ill and Castro.........nice ::)!!
-
So? How many Israeli troops are on the ground in Afghanistan and iraq at the moment? Yikes.
So? We've never done any shady shit? We need them under control, and negotiations can do that. please tell me you're not using a grudge to prevent future diplomacy.
And what has Bush done to stop them? They're 5 years ahead of Iran in terms of nuke development. They fired nukes at hawaii on the 4th of July. They set off a nuke and gave China 20 min warning and us, zero. I haven't noticed your string of "attack N Korea threads". Why is this?
I'm not defending shit. I'm telling you that anyone with a brain - and all of our leaders throughout history - have attempted to employ DIPLOMACY before they started dropping bombs. The standard line is "but, but, but they're evil". But Russia was plenty evil, even setting up nukes 40 miles from US soil. Skipping diplomacy there would have led to WWIII.
If you were in JFK's shoes, would you have negotiated with the Russians? Or just launched nukes?
Oh yes, you've got it figured out now, Rob. Let's talk them out of it!
Here you go, let's see you negotiate with this terrorist:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816 (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816)
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
Your fondness for tyrants and despots is frightening.
-
If Iran does anything bad, I condone nuking them into fiberglass.
But if all they've done is talk trash, so the hell what?
Do you seriously want to spill US blood battling 70 million iraqis because their leader talked shit?
Do ya?
-
If Iran does anything bad, I condone nuking them into fiberglass.
But if all they've done is talk trash, so the hell what?
Do you seriously want to spill US blood battling 70 million iraqis because their leader talked shit?
Do ya?
Sigh. First you outline them as a target for peace talks (i.e. recognising them a threat), and then you say they're just 'trash' talkers. I knew you didn't believe your own hype.
-
Yet Iran ignores UN sanctions and sides with Chavez, Ill and Castro.........nice ::)!!
IRAN = OIL
KOREA = Rubber Dog Shit and cheap auto parts
-
IRAN = OIL
KOREA = Rubber Dog Shit and cheap auto parts
I think you're confusing North and South. And there are better and cheaper ways of getting oil.
-
Sigh. First you outline them as a target for peace talks (i.e. recognising them a threat), and then you say they're just 'trash' talkers. I knew you didn't believe your own hype.
They're a modern nation - any modern nation is a threat.
I don't believe there is EVER a scenario when diplomacy should not be employed. Even on the brink of war, both nations know a victory will often be phyrric and will look for an "out".
Come on, it's incredibly stupid to start a war without negotiations. The bilateral Iraq group called for talks. The dems want talks. Why is this neocon group the only group who detests talks?
-
I think you're confusing North and South. And there are better and cheaper ways of getting oil.
it was a joke.
PLEASE don't tell me you think we are in IRAQ for ANYTHING other than oil or Bush's ego.
-
it was a joke. (an inaccurate one)
PLEASE don't tell me you think we are in IRAQ for ANYTHING other than oil or Bush's ego.
Gee, you make it sound like to disagree with your view would be silly or something ::)
If we're in Iraq for oil, we're doing a real bad job of things, my friend. Try and use your sense of reason, rather than conspiracy, to guide you.
-
They're a modern nation - any modern nation is a threat.
I don't believe there is EVER a scenario when diplomacy should not be employed. Even on the brink of war, both nations know a victory will often be phyrric and will look for an "out".
Come on, it's incredibly stupid to start a war without negotiations. The bilateral Iraq group called for talks. The dems want talks. Why is this neocon group the only group who detests talks?
A nation with nuclear capabilities, a hatred of us, and a leader ready and willing to destroy our allies. If you think this is just any other country in the modern world you're lost. And there you go talking them up, and down, all in the same argument. Get things clear in your head before hitting those keys.
-
Gee, you make it sound like to disagree with your view would be silly or something ::)
If we're in Iraq for oil, we're doing a real bad job of things, my friend. Try and use your sense of reason, rather than conspiracy, to guide you.
We've been in Iraq less than 5 years. Bush and Gates have already said it's going to be decades. I think you're being short-sighted. There are 3t in crude unprocessed, and $40 trillion in saleable oil under them (at 75 a barrel pricetag). Sitting under them. And we're setting up 14 military bases along the path of the oil pipeline.
it's pointless to argue this.
-
We've been in Iraq less than 5 years. Bush and Gates have already said it's going to be decades. I think you're being short-sighted. There are 3t in crude unprocessed, and $40 trillion in saleable oil under them (at 75 a barrel pricetag). Sitting under them. And we're setting up 14 military bases along the path of the oil pipeline.
it's pointless to argue this.
Yes, I know its uncomfortable to have your ideas challenged, so I'll accept if you no longer want to be involved with this. Let's just give it a bit of 'wait and see' with the oil okay?
-
Gee, you make it sound like to disagree with your view would be silly or something ::)
If we're in Iraq for oil, we're doing a real bad job of things, my friend. Try and use your sense of reason, rather than conspiracy, to guide you.
Personally,I think the biggest reason we went into Iraq was Bush wanting to get Sadam. I think he was wanting an excuse and the WMD thing was his chance.
-
Saddam is dead.
We're still paying haliburton to build the pipeline. We're still building 14+ permanent US bases right along that pipeline.
-
Saddam is dead.
We're still paying haliburton to build the pipeline. We're still building 14+ permanent US bases right along that pipeline.
Yes, protecting wealth for Iraqi people, how vile. Perhaps we should allow terrorists or neighbouring countries to move in and take it?
-
Yes, protecting wealth for Iraqi people, how vile. Perhaps we should allow terrorists or neighbouring countries to move in and take it?
Is it the same with the Afghan oil pipeline? Are we building that for the Afghan people?
-
A nation with nuclear capabilities, a hatred of us, and a leader ready and willing to destroy our allies.
North Korea. Why haven't we invaded them, and why aren't they even on the list?
nuclear capabilities, Check!
a hatred of us, Check!
and a leader ready and willing to destroy our allies, Check!
I'll add:
ICBMs tested and close to working.
Detonated nukes on their soil.
nation very poor, which increases chance of sale of weapons
nation very poor, which increases chance of action sooner, rather than later.
-
Is it the same with the Afghan oil pipeline? Are we building that for the Afghan people?
Now you're catching on. Please tell me more about how we have improved the lives of Afghanis in recent times.
-
North Korea. Why haven't we invaded them, and why aren't they even on the list?
nuclear capabilities, Check!
a hatred of us, Check!
and a leader ready and willing to destroy our allies, Check!
I'll add:
ICBMs tested and close to working.
Detonated nukes on their soil.
nation very poor, which increases chance of sale of weapons
nation very poor, which increases chance of action sooner, rather than later.
Rob! I agree with you! Calm down!
North Korea scares me more than your conspiracies ever could, but we're not going to solve the problem with them by talking. We've told them, it's very simple really:
'Build nuclear arms, and there will be no further discussions, we will make life hard for you'
Is that ambiguous? Is anything unclear? Are they listening?
I'm all for disarming these crazies, but we need the participation of countries like China, Japan and South Korea. The world would be a better place with one less nuclear armed socialist state.
-
Yes, protecting wealth for Iraqi people, how vile. Perhaps we should allow terrorists or neighbouring countries to move in and take it?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA wHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT IRAQI PEOPLE? NOT ME. If we are going to be so "helpfull" with our tax dollars DO IT AT HOME. Why should my brother(or anyone's family member) die to protect the wealth of the Iraqi people?They didn't sign up for that. They signed up to protect America,NOT IRAQ.
-
Now you're catching on. Please tell me more about how we have improved the lives of Afghanis in recent times.
Afghanistan? We've been at war there for 64 months.
Almost 2000 days of the most advanced military in the world, fighting dudes with AKs. We've had an unlimited war and manpower budget. We've had the full support of NATO and the Afghan govt. And it's still a tie, and the drug export is more than ever.
Dude, we're not trying to win. We're stalling while we put in the oil pipeline. once we win, there is no reason to be there. Once we win, the world asks us to leave. We have worked for that pipeline for 7 years BEFORE 9/11. You think we're suddenly going to turn it over out of the goodness of our hearts?
That viewpoint is naive. I will waste no more time arguing it. We fought for that pipeline politically since 1995. No way we give it away now. And if you think the pipeline will go to iraq's border THEN STOP, well, um.... ???
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA wHO GIVES A FLYING f**k ABOUT IRAQI PEOPLE? NOT ME. If we are going to be so "helpfull" with our tax dollars DO IT AT HOME. Why should my brother(or anyone's family member) die to protect the wealth of the Iraqi people?They didn't sign up for that. They signed up to protect America,NOT IRAQ.
Good on you. Notice I didn't say this was the soul purpose of our involvement in this region, try doing less shouting and more thinking.
You attempt trivialise your brother's brave participation with your illogical posts.
-
Rob! I agree with you! Calm down!
North Korea scares me more than your conspiracies ever could, but we're not going to solve the problem with them by talking. We've told them, it's very simple really:
'Build nuclear arms, and there will be no further discussions, we will make life hard for you'
Is that ambiguous? Is anything unclear? Are they listening?
I'm all for disarming these crazies, but we need the participation of countries like China, Japan and South Korea. The world would be a better place with one less nuclear armed socialist state.
Why isn't Bush even talking about North Korea? They have outright said they will destroy america. They have missiles!! They HAVE nukes! I mean shit, they could send 10 rowboats to Mexico with nukes and walk them over the border. They are WAY more of a threat than iran. iran's program is brand new.
The White House RUNS from the NK issue. Why?
-
Afghanistan? We've been at war there for 64 months.
Almost 2000 days of the most advanced military in the world, fighting dudes with AKs. We've had an unlimited war and manpower budget. We've had the full support of NATO and the Afghan govt. And it's still a tie, and the drug export is more than ever.
Dude, we're not trying to win. We're stalling while we put in the oil pipeline. once we win, there is no reason to be there. Once we win, the world asks us to leave. We have worked for that pipeline for 7 years BEFORE 9/11. You think we're suddenly going to turn it over out of the goodness of our hearts?
That viewpoint is naive. I will waste no more time arguing it. We fought for that pipeline politically since 1995. No way we give it away now. And if you think the pipeline will go to iraq's border THEN STOP, well, um.... ???
Okay, so your point of view is that Afghanistan hasn't improved as a nation since the allied forces arrived there? Hmm, you do quite enjoy a touch of socialism, don't you. And we're not still at war in Afghanistan, in case you haven't noticed, it takes a little time to establish a democracy after tyrants have been dethroned. Give it a little effort and watch the flower grow.
Clearly we're always going to disagree on the oil issue - you think we want to take it all and rob (pun not intended) these nations, I think we're better than that. Time will tell, of course, so i tend to agree with your point of view that we are somewhat wasting our time arguing about it.
-
Why isn't Bush even talking about North Korea? They have outright said they will destroy america. They have missiles!! They HAVE nukes! I mean shit, they could send 10 rowboats to Mexico with nukes and walk them over the border. They are WAY more of a threat than iran. iran's program is brand new.
The White House RUNS from the NK issue. Why?
Not totally sure they're more of a threat than Iran, and I disagree the White House is running from the issue. The US is committing itself well and truly to making the world a better place in areas it does not necessarily have to. That's what I call bravery.
How about we call on some of the other nations to do so as well? Where is the international community's pressure on China to do something?
Notwithstanding this, I do agree with you that the US should do everything in its power to ensure the world isn't held to ransom by such rogue nations.
-
Of course it has improved.
But there were near-zero drug export in late 2001 - the taleban shut it down completely. I find it a little hard to believe that the US, with all our satellites and men on teh ground, cannot locate and destroy poppy fields which fund terror. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Afghans can carry out tons of opium and we don't see it. I mean, the shit grows in fields. It takes months. How did the taleban, with their pickup trucks, stop what our sat intel cannot? (Answer is that this drug money floats the US economy, but that's a diff subject).
here's where we are clashing - we are not stealing their oil. bad word, sorry if I used it. What we are doing is forcing the nations to sell it to only us, at a price we set, at a time of our choosing. They get *some* money for it, but not what they'd get selling it on the open market.
It lets us keep our adversaries from getting it. And I support it. We put the govt in, we make the rules, we take advantage, but they don't starve. I just get irritated when people say we're there for democracy, saddam, the goodness of our hearts... shit, it's about resources, plain and simple. We want to control them, and now we do.
-
, it takes a little time to establish a democracy after tyrants have been dethroned.
I agree 100%
The first couple of years will be tough for our next President.
-
Not totally sure they're more of a threat than Iran, and I disagree the White House is running from the issue.
??? They have detonated nukes and fired ICBMs, Iran has not. You really don't see them as MORE of a threat? And the White house denied the nuke, then downplayed the magnatude, then downplayed the radiation, then deflected to the int'l comunity. If iran had fired missiles or detonated a nuke, what do you think they would have done?
The US is committing itself well and truly to making the world a better place in areas it does not necessarily have to. That's what I call bravery.
I call it resource procurement.
How about we call on some of the other nations to do so as well? Where is the international community's pressure on China to do something?
China is shooting missiles at satellites. They're gonna be a threat in 10-20 years. Hell, they might use N Korean men to fight by proxy. They're not doing anything. And NK has no beef with them. Just us.
-
Of course it has improved.
But there were near-zero drug export in late 2001 - the taleban shut it down completely. I find it a little hard to believe that the US, with all our satellites and men on teh ground, cannot locate and destroy poppy fields which fund terror. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Afghans can carry out tons of opium and we don't see it. I mean, the shit grows in fields. It takes months. How did the taleban, with their pickup trucks, stop what our sat intel cannot? (Answer is that this drug money floats the US economy, but that's a diff subject).
here's where we are clashing - we are not stealing their oil. bad word, sorry if I used it. What we are doing is forcing the nations to sell it to only us, at a price we set, at a time of our choosing. They get *some* money for it, but not what they'd get selling it on the open market.
It lets us keep our adversaries from getting it. And I support it. We put the govt in, we make the rules, we take advantage, but they don't starve. I just get irritated when people say we're there for democracy, saddam, the goodness of our hearts... shit, it's about resources, plain and simple. We want to control them, and now we do.
Much better post, I think you have moderated it far better than previously. Perhaps the US will benefit from the oil in these nations, but I still disagree that our presence in these areas is motivated by oil. Surely 9/11 was a slightly more relevant choice.
Either way, the world is better without the Taliban, without Saddam, and with democracies beginning to grow in these areas. Our purpose there is just and good.
-
??? They have detonated nukes and fired ICBMs, Iran has not. You really don't see them as MORE of a threat? And the White house denied the nuke, then downplayed the magnatude, then downplayed the radiation, then deflected to the int'l comunity. If iran had fired missiles or detonated a nuke, what do you think they would have done?
I call it resource procurement.
China is shooting missiles at satellites. They're gonna be a threat in 10-20 years. Hell, they might use N Korean men to fight by proxy. They're not doing anything. And NK has no beef with them. Just us.
The White House didn't deny there was a nuclear weapon, Rob, and you know that. They waited for clarification like the rest of us.
Iran is next door to Iraq, NK isn't. Keep in mind Israel is in the picture too, and notice that Iran isn't too far behind NK in weapons development.
China shouldn't get off scot-free on this issue, either. I hope you can at least agree with that.
-
Saddam is dead.
We're still paying haliburton to build the pipeline. We're still building 14+ permanent US bases right along that pipeline.
if thats the, then alot of the Dems are making a shitload as well because they also invested in Haliburton!
-
if thats the, then alot of the Dems are making a shitload as well because they also invested in Haliburton!
i never said there weren't a bunch of dem crooks too. there are!
And I don't care that we're stealing managing Iraq's oil. I just like to argue when people say we're over there cause we're good people. We are over there because if we don't get that oil, they will.
I don't even care that we're going to invade Iran, I just want people to be honest about it. Don't say "they're sooo scary and they say mean things and they're waaaay more dangerous than N Korea". I just want people to say "Yes, we're raping the mofo's for their oil. Kiss our ass if you don't like it".
-
i never said there weren't a bunch of dem crooks too. there are!
And I don't care that we're stealing managing Iraq's oil. I just like to argue when people say we're over there cause we're good people. We are over there because if we don't get that oil, they will.
I don't even care that we're going to invade Iran, I just want people to be honest about it. Don't say "they're sooo scary and they say mean things and they're waaaay more dangerous than N Korea". I just want people to say "Yes, we're raping the mofo's for their oil. Kiss our ass if you don't like it".
If we're stealing oil, then where is it :-\??
-
i never said there weren't a bunch of dem crooks too. there are!
And I don't care that we're stealing managing Iraq's oil. I just like to argue when people say we're over there cause we're good people. We are over there because if we don't get that oil, they will.
I don't even care that we're going to invade Iran, I just want people to be honest about it. Don't say "they're sooo scary and they say mean things and they're waaaay more dangerous than N Korea". I just want people to say "Yes, we're raping the mofo's for their oil. Kiss our ass if you don't like it".
Wow, have you considered a career in politics?
-
If we're stealing oil, then where is it :-\??
In hyperfavorable contracts ensuring that every drop that ever leaves that sand enters haliburton hands for processing, mgmt and distribution.
i'm not against it - i'm just against when people say 'we do it cause we're nice guys'.
-
A recent post by Beach made me think of especially a phrase in Matthew(Whoa!! :o)...
GWB claims he is an active Christian, also that he's feeling the Lord, he also claims he reads the Bible a lot. Assuming he's telling the truth, this makes for some interesting take on Bush's War On Terror, and his general foreign policy.
Try for a moment to forget whether or not you are a Christian, or if you support Bush or not.
Here are words from the scripture that Bush reads.
You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall hit you on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew)
You have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew)
An Atheist, or a Jew eg, wouldn't have words like this to live by.
But Bush, claiming he is an active Christian, does.
So my question is, how can Bush claim to be an active Christian, if he doesn't try to follow the words of the scripture?
I mean, where is the love for the terrorists? The love for the "enemies" of USA, that he's repeatedly spoken of?
I'm not saying he should show love for terrorists.
But then, he shouldn't claim to be a Christian, or that he leads a Christian life.
Be consequent.
-Hedge
Hedge I don't think a reasonable interpretation of those scriptures is that we lay down our arms. That's essentially what you're saying. If turning the other cheek applies to our military, then we could not have taken out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 911. And Bush may or may not be wrong, when all is said and done, about his decision to invade Iraq, but that was a decision he made as Commander in Chief in what he thought was in the long-term best interests of the country. There is nothing anti-Christian about that at all.
-
but that was a decision he made as Commander in Chief in what he thought was in the long-term best interests of the country. There is nothing anti-Christian about that at all.
Right, and wrong.
He invaded Iraq because it is probably in the best interests of the country. We lose 4k-5k men, and we gain control over iraqi oil. They only sell to us and the price we set. We gain strategic advantage over world. That's an easy one.
Was invading Iraq the Christian thing to do?
This is a tougher one. Mathematically, more people have died inside the country's borders in the last 4 years under OUR control, than per 4-year rate under saddam. Acquiring oil interests was what the US wanted. but would any of us want to stand before St Peter and say "Yes, the war was the right and holy thing to do". I wouldn't want that job.
ANy peace or democracy which comes is a byproduct of our main goal. To believe we flew past Darfur to save less lives in Iraq is kinda weird...
-
Hedge I don't think a reasonable interpretation of those scriptures is that we lay down our arms. That's essentially what you're saying. If turning the other cheek applies to our military, then we could not have taken out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 911. And Bush may or may not be wrong, when all is said and done, about his decision to invade Iraq, but that was a decision he made as Commander in Chief in what he thought was in the long-term best interests of the country. There is nothing anti-Christian about that at all.
I still don't understand the Iraq thing... Why are we there again? They changed the answer so many times, that I don't remember which answer we're on.
As far as Bush being a Christian, I'm sure he tries... I do believe that... I do not for one second believe that he's being two-faced.
The bible also says if you beat your enemy, you beat them into the ground... He's trying really hard to get this one done.
Now, he is Commander-In-Chief... and a terrible one at that... just horrible, mostly for not listening to his really intelligent people (Colon Powell) and just going with what he "knows to be true".
All that being said, he's a Christian, but as with an Christian, he has flaws... Plenty of them.
He's actually one of the least hypocritical politicians... he's just one of the moronic ones.
Oh, and btw... I'm not a fan of Religion... more wars have been fought, and more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other reason on earth.
How about we do the right thing just because it's "the right thing to do".
-
Right, and wrong.
He invaded Iraq because it is probably in the best interests of the country. We lose 4k-5k men, and we gain control over iraqi oil. They only sell to us and the price we set. We gain strategic advantage over world. That's an easy one.
Was invading Iraq the Christian thing to do?
This is a tougher one. Mathematically, more people have died inside the country's borders in the last 4 years under OUR control, than per 4-year rate under saddam. Acquiring oil interests was what the US wanted. but would any of us want to stand before St Peter and say "Yes, the war was the right and holy thing to do". I wouldn't want that job.
ANy peace or democracy which comes is a byproduct of our main goal. To believe we flew past Darfur to save less lives in Iraq is kinda weird...
I don't buy the war for oil argument. No proof. And if we went to war for their oil, we failed miserably, because we don't own it, control it, etc.
There is war throughout the Bible. We actually wage war in a much more humane way than some battles described in the Old Testament, where women and children were intentionally wiped out.
-
How about we do the right thing just because it's "the right thing to do".
I agree.
-
I don't buy the war for oil argument. No proof. And if we went to war for their oil, we failed miserably, because we don't own it, control it, etc.
Proof? US firms are managing the oil flow. I don't know what more proof you need. We control every drop coming out of the ground, and we're contractually there for a very long time. Those 14 bases built along the pipeline.
Seriously, I don't understand you saying "we don't control it". Our companies drill, pump, edit, output and sell it, and write them a medium check.
I don't know what more proof I can give you. Sorry I cannot provide the contract between malaki and haliburton, those aren't public. but in every other situation like this, the firm accepts a bid based upon future oil revenues. And the US does benefit, so i'm not against it.
But seriously people, "we lost 3000 men and killed 150k civilians and countless fighters because we want to share freedom" is such a crock of shit. it's about global control.
-
Proof? US firms are managing the oil flow. I don't know what more proof you need. We control every drop coming out of the ground, and we're contractually there for a very long time. Those 14 bases built along the pipeline.
Seriously, I don't understand you saying "we don't control it". Our companies drill, pump, edit, output and sell it, and write them a medium check.
I don't know what more proof I can give you. Sorry I cannot provide the contract between malaki and haliburton, those aren't public. but in every other situation like this, the firm accepts a bid based upon future oil revenues. And the US does benefit, so i'm not against it.
But seriously people, "we lost 3000 men and killed 150k civilians and countless fighters because we want to share freedom" is such a crock of shit. it's about global control.
I have to admit, if it's NOT about oil... why the fuck are we still there? They do NOT want us there... I'm far more pissed that my gas isn't 99 cents a gallon right now... They better bring that oil under control... Fucking Exxon-Mobil better get shit straight.
Hey "W", if you're out there.. "FUCK YOU", and lower my damn gas prices.... ass.
-
I have to admit, if it's NOT about oil... why the f**k are we still there?
majority of Americans want out.
majority of congress want out.
iraqis want us out.
saddam is dead.
they held elections - democracy is alive.
they've had 2 years to train police.
why are we still there again, planning a 48k men increased in 2007 and 92k over the following 5 years?
-
Proof? US firms are managing the oil flow. I don't know what more proof you need. We control every drop coming out of the ground, and we're contractually there for a very long time. Those 14 bases built along the pipeline.
Seriously, I don't understand you saying "we don't control it". Our companies drill, pump, edit, output and sell it, and write them a medium check.
I don't know what more proof I can give you. Sorry I cannot provide the contract between malaki and haliburton, those aren't public. but in every other situation like this, the firm accepts a bid based upon future oil revenues. And the US does benefit, so i'm not against it.
But seriously people, "we lost 3000 men and killed 150k civilians and countless fighters because we want to share freedom" is such a crock of shit. it's about global control.
1. Private companies are working in Iraq. It's not the government.
2. Neither one of us has seen any contracts, so how can you say "we're contractually there for a very long time"?
3. Because neither one of us has seen any contracts, debating the substance of those contracts is pointless.
4. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq so a handful of private U.S. companies could make some money.
So, when I say there is no proof, there really isn't. There is conjecture.
-
1. Private companies are working in Iraq. It's not the government.
2. Neither one of us has seen any contracts, so how can you say "we're contractually there for a very long time"?
3. Because neither one of us has seen any contracts, debating the substance of those contracts is pointless.
4. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq so a handful of private U.S. companies could make some money.
So, when I say there is no proof, there really isn't. There is conjecture.
1. Actually, it's both... there are soldiers and private companies doing the same job... Private people just get paid an ASSLOAD more.
2. True, we haven't, but we do know there are contracts, private firms like Haliburton would be there if they weren't getting paid, and no one gets paid without a contract... 1+1 does still equal 2.
3. See above item marked "2". We could debate them, but the fact is, we don't know how they're laid out, but we do know that no private company would be there if they weren't getting paid... which relates directly to previous point.
4. Maybe not, but isn't his dad on the board of a large firm that just so happens to be in Iraq? I just remember the Michael Moore movie mentioning it.
Conjecture, yes, but probable conjecture... When you have eliminated the "impossible" that which is "improbable" no matter how unlikely, must be the truth.
-
"1. Private companies are working in Iraq. It's not the government. "
Our firms bring that oil to the US. And our 180k men (once the 2007 surge kicks in) are also working in iraq, you know that.
"2. Neither one of us has seen any contracts, so how can you say "we're contractually there for a very long time"?
Gates and Bush and Snow said so. Said it'll be decades. Do you think we're going to build our bases along a pipeline they'll sell to the chinese? Do you think haliburton will build the whole thing, then turn it over? C'mon.
"3. Because neither one of us has seen any contracts, debating the substance of those contracts is pointless."
Standard thing. Do ya think haliburton will sell that oil to China in 2009 if China offers more $? No.
"4. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq so a handful of private U.S. companies could make some money. "
No, it was about long term US securement of oil for NATIONAL goals. i've said this ten times tonight. The coprs getting paid is a fun byproduct for bush buddies. the bigger goal is that we own the large oil reserves, silly. not china, not russia.
BB, this is where you and Bruce get so mad, but IMO you just don't understand, or you'rejust being naive.
Do you really think Bush, US, and haliburton are going to rebuild the infrastructure (pipeline, bases, etc), then just leave? Every other time we've rebuilt, we've stayed. It's what we do, and it allows us to ensure no one crosses the border and no one makes deals.
Forget it, we shuldn't discuss this. i have my beliefs - profit and preeservation. you have yours - honor and freedom. While yours looks great on tv and makes good slogans, mine is the reality behind the great things we volunteer to do.
No harm,w e just have diff perspectives.
-
1. Actually, it's both... there are soldiers and private companies doing the same job... Private people just get paid an ASSLOAD more.
2. True, we haven't, but we do know there are contracts, private firms like Haliburton would be there if they weren't getting paid, and no one gets paid without a contract... 1+1 does still equal 2.
3. See above item marked "2". We could debate them, but the fact is, we don't know how they're laid out, but we do know that no private company would be there if they weren't getting paid... which relates directly to previous point.
4. Maybe not, but isn't his dad on the board of a large firm that just so happens to be in Iraq? I just remember the Michael Moore movie mentioning it.
Conjecture, yes, but probable conjecture... When you have eliminated the "impossible" that which is "improbable" no matter how unlikely, must be the truth.
1. Soldiers doing any work related to oil are actually costing us money, so in terms of profit, it is not the government involved in oil.
2. The issue isn't whether they're getting paid. Of course they are. What we don't know is who the parties to the contract are, whether the contract can be terminated at will or is for a specific length of time, which forum a breach of contract claim would be decided in (i.e., the U.S. or Iraq--most likely Iraq), and even the subject matter of the contract. You need that information before you can reasonably conclude that we started a war to obtain this "secret" contract.
3. See point 2. :)
4. Michael Moore?? C'mon. :) But let's assume Bush Sr. is on the board of directors of a private company that is in Iraq. So what. You might be thinking about Cheney and his involvement with Halliburton?
I don't follow your last line.
-
1. Soldiers doing any work related to oil are actually costing us money, so in terms of profit, it is not the government involved in oil.
2. The issue isn't whether they're getting paid. Of course they are. What we don't know is who the parties to the contract are, whether the contract can be terminated at will or is for a specific length of time, which forum a breach of contract claim would be decided in (i.e., the U.S. or Iraq--most likely Iraq), and even the subject matter of the contract. You need that information before you can reasonably conclude that we started a war to obtain this "secret" contract.
3. See point 2. :)
4. Michael Moore?? C'mon. :) But let's assume Bush Sr. is on the board of directors of a private company that is in Iraq. So what. You might be thinking about Cheney and his involvement with Halliburton?
I don't follow your last line.
It's ok... the point really is moot... We won't be out of there for a very long time, no matter which side of the fence you're on... I do still think the whole thing is fucked up and wrong.
-
BB, this is where you and Bruce get so mad, but IMO you just don't understand, or you'rejust being naive.
Didn't you learn anything from Bruce's posts which quoted your posts? :-\
Listen. It is okay to disagree. There is nothing wrong with having a different opinion. A person isn't dumb or naive simply because they disagree with you. You need to learn that lesson.
But then again, you believe most Americans are stupid. :-\
January 31, 2007, 08:20:01 AM » Quote
"In terms of understanding politics, history, and economics, most americans are stupid."
-
It's ok... the point really is moot... We won't be out of there for a very long time, no matter which side of the fence you're on... I do still think the whole thing is fucked up and wrong.
Perhaps.
But the contract thing really makes no sense. Contracts are broken all the time. If the contract is with the Iraqi government they could breach tell Halliburton to scram. And good luck getting and collecting on a judgment in an Iraqi court against the Iraqi government. It's really absurd.
-
Perhaps.
But the contract thing really makes no sense. Contracts are broken all the time. If the contract is with the Iraqi government they could breach tell Halliburton to scram. And good luck getting and collecting on a judgment in an Iraqi court against the Iraqi government. It's really absurd.
Dude, you're completely unaware of Bush1's affil with Carlyle group? Come on!
And your belief that the US military would let Iraq just DROP haliburton and others? LOL! We started a war with afghanistan over taleban burning us, from halfway around the world. You SERIOUSLY think we'd sit idly as they brought in a chinese oil co. to finish what haliburton started? OMG I seriously would love to see you debate these points in public, I would pay to see it. Telling a group that you believe a project costing the US govt 400b so far and 1.2T projected as of today, could be railroaded on a whim by al-Maliki, LOL>.. there are control in place my friend, it will not happen. But hey, if that's the level of belief you choose to exhibit, run with it. We could use a laugh!
-
majority of Americans want out.
majority of congress want out.
iraqis want us out.
saddam is dead.
they held elections - democracy is alive.
they've had 2 years to train police.
why are we still there again, planning a 48k men increased in 2007 and 92k over the following 5 years?
"strategery"
-
Dude, you're completely unaware of Bush1's affil with Carlyle group? Come on!
And your belief that the US military would let Iraq just DROP haliburton and others? LOL! We started a war with afghanistan over taleban burning us, from halfway around the world. You SERIOUSLY think we'd sit idly as they brought in a chinese oil co. to finish what haliburton started? OMG I seriously would love to see you debate these points in public, I would pay to see it. Telling a group that you believe a project costing the US govt 400b so far and 1.2T projected as of today, could be railroaded on a whim by al-Maliki, LOL>.. there are control in place my friend, it will not happen. But hey, if that's the level of belief you choose to exhibit, run with it. We could use a laugh!
I see. Let's follow this absurd notion to its logical conclusion. Why don't you explain how President Hillary, Obama, McCain, etc., as Commander in Chief will order the United States Army to force the Iraqi government to honor a "secret" contract with a private company.
Hillary as Commander in Chief. *shudder*
-
What? Do you actually believe that?
Iran, led by their crazed dictator, is threatening to wipe Israel off the map. In case you forgot, they're an ally of ours.
at BESt israel is a liability..
why oh why do you give a rats ass about israel? ally? lol..you mean a liability..because of who WE become targets..iran and israel wanna wipe eachother out..well hell plenty of countries in africa do that ..we dont seem to care..we r thousands of miles away..let em.
its a little country someplace in the middle east..why do we care soo much about what happens to israel.. :-\
North Korea just went atomic.
and we aren't gonna do shit..you dont attack countries that actually HAVE WMDs ;)
-
why oh why do you give a rats ass about israel? ally? lol..you mean a liability..because of who WE become targets..iran and israel wanna wipe eachother out..well hell plenty of countries in africa do that ..we dont seem to care..we r thousands of miles away..let em.
its a little country someplace in the middle east..why do we care soo much about what happens to israel.. :-\
and we aren't gonna do shit..you dont attack countries that actually HAVE WMDs ;)
We did in 1990. :)
-
I see. Let's follow this absurd notion to its logical conclusion. Why don't you explain how President Hillary, Obama, McCain, etc., as Commander in Chief will order the United States Army to force the Iraqi government to honor a "secret" contract with a private company.
Hillary as Commander in Chief. *shudder*
cause these actions take place above the presidency level. Observe the food chain:
Decision makers at defense firms
Generals and joint chiefs
President
then down the list that is in your history books.
You don't have to believe this. But it sure does line up with what we're seeing in Iraq, eh? ;)
-
Fuck Iraq. Let's bomb Mexico.
-
f**k Iraq. Let's bomb Mexico.
we'd save money on shipping costs. Plus we already have what some would call the refugee crisis. I'm down!
-
f**k Iraq. Let's bomb Mexico.
Just don't bomb any of the "all enclusive" resorts
-
Just don't bomb any of the "all enclusive" resorts
we will put our military bases there.
-
Just don't bomb any of the "all enclusive" resorts
Screw the resorts. Preserve the restaurants. :)
-
Hahaha
Bruce, you don't honestly think we're building bases there to protect the Iraqi people do you? ::)
-
Hahaha
Bruce, you don't honestly think we're building bases there to protect the Iraqi people do you? ::)
Notice I said the word 'wealth' in that comment. You'll no doubt be able to point out another group or nation that is doing more for the protection of the Iraqi people than the US, though.
-
Notice I said the word 'wealth' in that comment. You'll no doubt be able to point out another group or nation that is doing more for the protection of the Iraqi people than the US, though.
LOL!
Will you admit we're installing oil pipeline managed by US firms in iraq?
-
Notice I said the word 'wealth' in that comment. You'll no doubt be able to point out another group or nation that is doing more for the protection of the Iraqi people than the US, though.
That's cause we don't care about the "people" in Iraq.I know what I said about being there for Bush's ego....but I will admit that the more I read the more I agree with 240 on this subject.(why we are there) But come on now...we can't exactly come out and say that is the reason.I just don't see how anyone honestly thinks we care enough about "THE IRAQI PEOPLE" to justify this war.I know I don't....sorry.
-
That's cause we don't care about the "people" in Iraq.I know what I said about being there for Bush's ego....but I will admit that the more I read the more I agree with 240 on this subject.(why we are there) But come on now...we can't exactly come out and say that is the reason.I just don't see how anyone honestly thinks we care enough about "THE IRAQI PEOPLE" to justify this war.I know I don't....sorry.
We flew over Darfur, Sudan - a FAR WORSE humanitarian crisis, on the way to Iraq.
it would have been a pushover to stop the slaughter there.
We would have saved many more lives, without losing 3000.
At the time, people asked "If you want a humanitarian cause, why not take on this more easily solveable, less dangerous one that's closer to home?"
-
Once we say it's the reason, the UN will ask us to leave. Period.
As long as we can obfuscate the issue and confuse the world with 1) WMD 2) Sadaam is mean 3) democracy 4) save lives...
Even smart Americans here don't know we're actually there for 5) Oil to go into the brand new afghan pipeline, right next door :)
by the time the rest of the world knows, we'll have it, and they can't do anything.
-
why oh why do you give a rats ass about israel? ally? lol..you mean a liability..because of who WE become targets..iran and israel wanna wipe eachother out..well hell plenty of countries in africa do that ..we dont seem to care..we r thousands of miles away..let em.
its a little country someplace in the middle east..why do we care soo much about what happens to israel.. :-\
and we aren't gonna do shit..you dont attack countries that actually HAVE WMDs ;)
I'm with you on this one... I don't give a shit about anyone of them... let them blow each other the fuck up... who cares?
As far as WMDs... We don't attack anyone who an really cause us damage... we don't want THAT kinda fucked up'ed ness.