[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Scrotus wrote:
The economics of war would be easier to ponder after said marauders have blown your brains out and are running a train on your wife and daughter in your marital bed eh?
It is a hypothetical that isn’t even worth pondering.
Not hypothetical in the sense that it has happened millions of times in the past. On every continent. In every time period - including the present. And perpetrated against people who never cared to ponder it…before it happened.
They tend to ponder a lot afterward, however.[/quote]
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Scrotus wrote:
The economics of war would be easier to ponder after said marauders have blown your brains out and are running a train on your wife and daughter in your marital bed eh?
It is a hypothetical that isn’t even worth pondering.
Not hypothetical in the sense that it has happened millions of times in the past. On every continent. In every time period - including the present. And perpetrated against people who never cared to ponder it…before it happened.
They tend to ponder a lot afterward, however.
Pondering is a bit of a lost art,it seems to me.[/quote]
Problem with many Americans they have that “it can’t happen to me mentality”
I have a locksmith friend who was changing our locks and putting deadbolts in acouple of weeks ago( someone broke in and stole all our gold and loose cash while away one day) He told me that the rise in these kind of breaks ins was huge in the past 2 months and we live in a descent area, not a high crime area. And in the past week he knew of 4 house seiges in which the wife and female children were raped and in 2 of them some of the family wer killed.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not hypothetical in the sense that it has happened millions of times in the past.[/quote]
Yes, but history does not repeat itself and one must always take into consideration the specific events that lead up to those specific moments. I don’t have enough time in my day to contemplate it.
All I know is that I am not currently worried enough to lose sleep over the possibility of it.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Scrotus wrote:
The economics of war would be easier to ponder after said marauders have blown your brains out and are running a train on your wife and daughter in your marital bed eh?
It is a hypothetical that isn’t even worth pondering.
Not hypothetical in the sense that it has happened millions of times in the past. On every continent. In every time period - including the present. And perpetrated against people who never cared to ponder it…before it happened.
They tend to ponder a lot afterward, however.
Pondering is a bit of a lost art,it seems to me.
Problem with many Americans they have that “it can’t happen to me mentality”
I have a locksmith friend who was changing our locks and putting deadbolts in acouple of weeks ago( someone broke in and stole all our gold and loose cash while away one day) He told me that the rise in these kind of breaks ins was huge in the past 2 months and we live in a descent area, not a high crime area. And in the past week he knew of 4 house seiges in which the wife and female children were raped and in 2 of them some of the family wer killed.
So much for that whole not happening idea.
[/quote]
As and if the economy declines further,there are going to be marked increases in this type of property crime as poverty levels rise.If people cannot eat,they will steal.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Not hypothetical in the sense that it has happened millions of times in the past.
Yes, but history does not repeat itself…
You sir, are not in the running for the Magnificent Mind of 2008 award.
Don’t worry, you’re in no position to judge that.
I wouldn’t have to. There’s not a single person reading this thread, liberal or conservative or moderate alike, that wouldn’t laugh you right outta here for uttering such a witless remark.[/quote]
That’s funny, not ha ha funny, but odd. I was coming to the opposite conclusion.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Interesting debate, but don’t kid yourself, liberation theology is Marxism with a Christian gloss.[/quote]
Archbishop Helda Camara once remarked When I help the poor I am called a saint, but when I ask why they are poor I am called a Communist
There is no way that an Archbishop can be accused of subscribing to an atheistic philosophy like Marxism. Would someone care to explain how liberation theology is Marxism?
The Czech write Karel Capek wrote about why he was not a Communist. Bourgeoisie that cannot or does not want to help here is a stranger to me; but equally strange to me is Communism that, instead of help, brings the flag of the Revolution. The final word of Communism is to rule, not to save; its gigantic slogan is power [moc], not help [pomoc]. As Communism sees them, poverty, hunger, unemployment are not unbearable pain and shame but rather a welcome reservoir of dark powers, fermenting by lots of anger and resistance. Some claim that The social order is to blame. No, rather all of us are to blame, whether we stand over human poverty with hands in our pockets or the flags of the Revolution in our hands. You can see the full translation at http://capek.misto.cz/english/communist.html
I think this states succinctly the difference between a compassionate liberal and a Communist. Communists feed on the anger and resentment of the oppressed to gain power. Liberation theology may be naive, but it is not Marxism.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I think Luke 22 showed the folly of trying to use earthly means to advance God’s kingdom, the first fruits of which is Jesus through his death on the cross and resurrection for our justification. I can’t find any political statements in it.
Though the Roman Catholics on this thread may disagree, I believe that the Bible distinguishes two kindgoms:
Most of the argumentation I’ve seen on this thread from Christians or from the Bible has involved massive confusion and conflation of the two kingdoms, which are “not antithetical.” [/quote]
You are probably right that I should not make too much of Luke 22 as being either pro- or anti- sword. Your statement, folly of trying to use earthly means to advance God’s kingdom does tie the chapter together.
What are we to make when President Bush warned Americans that this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile. The use of the word crusade seems to deliberately confuse the two kingdoms that you discuss. The two kingdoms should not be antithetical, but Calvin & Luther certainly argued that they should be decoupled.
I’m learning to see this a bit differently. But, do you really think that this war meets the criteria of a ‘just war’?
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I think Luke 22 showed the folly of trying to use earthly means to advance God’s kingdom, the first fruits of which is Jesus through his death on the cross and resurrection for our justification. I can’t find any political statements in it.
Though the Roman Catholics on this thread may disagree, I believe that the Bible distinguishes two kindgoms:
Most of the argumentation I’ve seen on this thread from Christians or from the Bible has involved massive confusion and conflation of the two kingdoms, which are “not antithetical.”
You are probably right that I should not make too much of Luke 22 as being either pro- or anti- sword. Your statement, folly of trying to use earthly means to advance God’s kingdom does tie the chapter together.
What are we to make when President Bush warned Americans that this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile. The use of the word crusade seems to deliberately confuse the two kingdoms that you discuss. The two kingdoms should not be antithetical, but Calvin & Luther certainly argued that they should be decoupled.
[/quote]
Well, Pope Gregory started the crusades using a just war rationale, not a religious one (well, he did say, “Christ commands it,” but his case was mostly just war). That said, I don’t believe the Papacy should exist and I am not a Roman Catholic, so there’s not much I can support that comes from RC doctrines. I do believe that there was adequate just war cause for the crusades, which were a response to 300 years of Islamic bellicosity against the West and against Jews and Christians in the Middle East and Levant. Without them, we would all likely be banging our heads towards Mecca 5 times a day. I think a purely secular just war case for the Crusades could have been made.
[quote]I’m learning to see this a bit differently. But, do you really think that this war meets the criteria of a ‘just war’?
[/quote]
What happened in the case of the Iraq war was that Bush received bad intelligence and read too much Natan Sharansky and believed Bernard Lewis and the various Shia envoys (who lied through their teeth) about the Muslim support/response to an Iraqi invasion. Being intellectually lazy, Bush was easily bamboozled into believing that the Arab Muslims could be “liberated” from Saddam and Democracy would break out all over Iraq and the Middle East. In reality, cultural presuppositions matter, and “slaves of Allah” cannot be made into a functional democracy of any respectable duration. We’ve witnessed, under the Bush regime, the near eradication of the oldest Christian populations in the Middle East (the Chaldeans and Assyrians), the emboldening of the (briefly) ascendant Shia crescent (Iran, Hizb’Allah, Syria), an increasingly threatened Israel, and a re-Islamizing Turkey. We’ve made no progress in Afghanistan that will not be IMMEDIATELY erased upon our departure. Bush simply doesn’t understand Islam, and that is why his tenure has been such a disaster for infidels globally.
That said, we haven’t been trying to ethnically cleanse the Arabs and we didn’t go to war in Iraq for unjust reasons, IMO. The reasons for war, I believe, were as I wrote in the previous paragraph, they just turned out to be abysmally mis-informed.
No, he was bamboozled because he was intellectually lazy. He and Condhimmi Rice will be to blame for newly-Islamist Turkey as well, as they cautioned the Turkish military against intervening to shore-up Turkish secularism against Abdullah Gul’s (elected) Islamist takeover.
We don’t disagree here.
Negative. He should have studied the Qur’an on his bookshelf or at least Islamic history, which has been characterized by 1300 years of tyranny and butchery of non-Muslims. You know what they say about those who refuse to look at the past.
[quote]Bush the elder could be accused of the same thing with the Kurds and southern Iraqis. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
[/quote]
Bush dropped leaflets on the Kurds telling them to rebel and we would support them. We didn’t, and they got gassed.
[quote]It’s hard to imagine that Israel is more threatened now then several years ago unless your referring to Ahmadinejad’s yapping.
[/quote]
Iran wasn’t as much of a regional power 8 years ago as it is now. It also wasn’t a nascent nuclear power. Hizb’allah wasn’t as strong. Now, Iran looks like the strong horse in the Middle East.
That region hasn’t been an area of enlightenment since pre-Islamic days when the Greeks ruled. If you have some means by which we could convince the Pashtuns to abandon Islam en masse, you will be right about the future of Afghanistan. If not, I will be right.
[quote]I disagree. Bush’s tenure has been a disaster for terrorists. You cannot argue that terrorism in the U.S. and Israel for that matter has been thwarted or at the very least, subdued. Just look at the statistics for proof.
[/quote]
Bush has killed many terrorists and let many move here. He allowed co-conspirators in the Holy Land terror trial (CAIR) to dine with him at the White House, thus giving the enemy aid and comfort. He has facilitated the destruction of the Chaldean and Assyrian communities in Iraq as well as repeated this suicidal “Islam is a religion of peace” mantra to the detriment of infidels globally who are subjected to Islamic jihad.
He has provided 2 killing fields for the jihadists to die in, but on the whole, he has been weighed in the scales and found wanting.
Of course there will be an upswing in terror. Only a fool would take that bet. However, comparing Bush to Obama is comparing suck to super-suck. Bush tried to pass an amnesty in 2006 which would have brought a lot more Muslims here. Obama will likely succeed in 2009. We’re re-arranging the chairs on the deck if we’re trying to compare the two in any meaningful categories.
Bush dropped leaflets on the Kurds telling them to rebel and we would support them. We didn’t, and they got gassed.
That was my point.
Iran wasn’t as much of a regional power 8 years ago as it is now. It also wasn’t a nascent nuclear power.
I believe this was inevitable and not necessarily Bush’s fault. When Saddam was weakened and destroyed the vacuum was filled by Iran. I know, Bush the elder and W did the weakening and destroying but that was a good thing all in all.
Hizb’allah wasn’t as strong.
A direct result of Iran’s ascendancy.
Now, Iran looks like the strong horse in the Middle East.
See above.
That region hasn’t been an area of enlightenment since pre-Islamic days when the Greeks ruled. If you have some means by which we could convince the Pashtuns to abandon Islam en masse, you will be right about the future of Afghanistan. If not, I will be right.
Agreed. However, the alternative in Afghanistan was to…?
Bush has killed many terrorists and let many move here. He allowed co-conspirators in the Holy Land terror trial (CAIR) to dine with him at the White House, thus giving the enemy aid and comfort. He has facilitated the destruction of the Chaldean and Assyrian communities in Iraq as well as repeated this suicidal “Islam is a religion of peace” mantra to the detriment of infidels globally who are subjected to Islamic jihad.
He has provided 2 killing fields for the jihadists to die in, but on the whole, he has been weighed in the scales and found wanting.
I would have had him kill many, many more terrorists. Ruthlessly, relentlessly, efficiently, violently, globally. Every quacking, walking duck everywhere, anywhere. I concur with Hetfield and Ulrich, Seek and Destroy and Kill 'Em All. Give no quarter.
So I obviously disagree with the “Oh no - You’ll only breed more terrorists that way - Oh my - That is so ghastly!” mentality. There are many cases in history of crushing an enemy to the point that he never rises again.
[/quote]
Thats just stupid, dont you know that history never repeats intself?
It depends on the level of magnification if history seems to repeat itself or not. Take the topic of this thread, christians at war. That’s a recurring theme. Still, every war with christians involved has been a unique historical incident with it’s own underlying causes.
I bet that we will see christians at war in the future, too.