The Iraq Thread 2

[Crazysheep 1]

Heck man i am no fan or liker of the US govt and the way its foreign policys shift tide day and night to thir 'own f---- interests' .

Not many people here like the US except probably the govt who are ass lickers to the US when it comes to oil money and military dealings...

That was my point.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]The soldiers saw a man lobbing one of the devices and shot him, apparently killing him. The shooting appeared to sober the crowd, which then dispersed, the spokeswoman said.

Hmm hard to decide but if there already had been detonations I would have shot either I guess, depending on the ROE´s.

[9mm 0]

Not giving Saddam away to Iraqis? I think such lack of imagaination is even beyond Bush capabilities.

Quote[/b] ]the way its foreign policys shift tide day and night to thir 'own f---- interests' .

Ok, than show me at least one country that prefers a "higher purpose" to its own political/economocal interests.

[Acecombat 0]

Not giving Saddam away to Iraqis? I think such lack of imagaination is even beyond Bush capabilities.

Quote[/b] ]the way its foreign policys shift tide day and night to thir 'own f---- interests' .

Ok, than show me at least one country that prefers a "higher purpose" to its own political/economocal interests.

LOL none dude but we dont shift our policys within minutes , neither do many countries attack countries out of that like the way US has done through these fifty years. Maybe Russia but thats over now ever since the break up of the soviet union.

You know what our economic interests lie everywhere too so what should we do take our army and invade all the Arabian peninsula to grab more oil

[EiZei 0]

Not giving Saddam away to Iraqis? I think such lack of imagaination is even beyond Bush capabilities.

Quote[/b] ]the way its foreign policys shift tide day and night to thir 'own f---- interests' .

Ok, than show me at least one country that prefers a "higher purpose" to its own political/economocal interests.

At least other countries dont go fighting wars around the globe in name of [freedom|security].

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]At least other countries dont go fighting wars around the globe in name of [freedom|security].

and god

[Acecombat 0]

Hahaha

That pretty much sums it all up

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]At least other countries dont go fighting wars around the globe in name of [freedom|security].

and god

It wasn't always like that.

Quote[/b] ]"You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us."

- Winston Churchill, Finest Hour speech

Quote[/b] ]"Everyone, man or woman, has done their best. Everyone has tried, none have flinched. Neither the long years, nor the dangers, nor the fierce attacks of the enemy have in any way weakened the unbending resolve of the British nation. God bless you all."

- Winston Churchill, VE Day speech

As for America, there's nothing fundamental about George Bush's use of divine terminology.

Quote[/b] ]"For the triumph of spirit and of arms which we have won, and for its promise to the peoples everywhere who join us in the love of freedom, it is fitting that we, as a nation, give thanks to Almighty God, who has strengthened us and given us the victory."

- Harry S. Truman, Surrender of Germany announcement

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]At least other countries dont go fighting wars around the globe in name of [freedom|security].

and god

It wasn't always like that.

Quote[/b] ]"You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us."

- Winston Churchill, Finest Hour speech

Quote[/b] ]"Everyone, man or woman, has done their best. Everyone has tried, none have flinched. Neither the long years, nor the dangers, nor the fierce attacks of the enemy have in any way weakened the unbending resolve of the British nation. God bless you all."

- Winston Churchill, VE Day speech

As for America, there's nothing fundamental about George Bush's use of divine terminology.

Quote[/b] ]"For the triumph of spirit and of arms which we have won, and for its promise to the peoples everywhere who join us in the love of freedom, it is fitting that we, as a nation, give thanks to Almighty God, who has strengthened us and given us the victory."

- Harry S. Truman, Surrender of Germany announcement

And your point?

Sorry i couldnt get a thing ....

[theavonlady 2]

Sorry i couldnt get a thing ....

many countries have fought wars in the name of G-d, in the not-so-distant past.

I don't see what's unique about Bush on this point.

[Acecombat 0]

Sorry i couldnt get a thing ....

many countries have fought wars in the name of G-d, in the not-so-distant past.

I don't see what's unique about Bush on this point.

Unfortunately many were defending their faith against oppresive fundamentalists of 'their' time.

That doesnt mean BUSH can wage a war on Iraq or does it ? Now let me guess Iraqs fundamentalism was somehow dangerous to americans too ??

Thats what unique about Bush at this time , plus what happened to the separation of church and state formula ?

Or are we now similiar to the Taliban ?

[theavonlady 2]

That doesnt mean BUSH can wage a war on Iraq or does it ?

No, it doesn't. Where did Bush say that G-d told him to wage war with Iraq?

[denoir 0]

That doesnt mean BUSH can wage a war on Iraq or does it ?

No, it doesn't. Where did Bush say that G-d told him to wage war with Iraq?

In the 2003 State of the Union Speech, depending a bit on your interpretation:

Quote[/b] ]

America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving god behind all of life and all of history.

May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

[theavonlady 2]

Nothing at all exceptional about that. What's all the excitement about?

Is this something that other "less fundamental" (but believing)Christians disagree with?

[denoir 0]

Nothing at all exceptional about that. What's all the excitement about?

It kind of puts a smudge on the concept of separation of church and state if you start making policy based on what you think God thinks is right or wrong.

By saying that the fundamental principles of a society are the ones that God would choose then you directly say that those that do not share those principles are wrong, as God is an absolute.

Normal religion practice: I have my beliefs but I accept that you have yours.

Fundamentalism: Only my beliefs are right and I will force you to embrace them.

[theavonlady 2]

Nothing at all exceptional about that. What's all the excitement about?

It kind of puts a smudge on the concept of separation of church and state if you start making policy based on what you think God thinks is right or wrong.

The United States is not scarfless France.

Many of its Presidents and political leaders at all levels have mentioned G-d in their public addresses.

There is no US law that forbids an elected official to state his beliefs. There is certainly no way that you can prevent anyone in any country from being influenced by his/her upbringing and philosophy.

There are lines that cannot be crossed, such as basing laws on religious grounds.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

There are lines that cannot be crossed, such as basing laws on religious grounds.

How about those conservatives who want gay marriage banned/not allowed on religious grounds?

[theavonlady 2]

By saying that the fundamental principles of a society are the ones that God would choose then you directly say that those that do not share those principles are wrong, as God is an absolute.

So basically, what it's saying is that a life of freedom and liberty, as the US indeed attempts to provide to its citizens, is right, versus something like a dictatorship, which is wrong.

So?

Quote[/b] ]Normal religion practice: I have my beliefs but I accept that you have yours.

Fundamentalism: Only my beliefs are right and I will force you to embrace them.

From Websters Dictionary:

fun-da-men-tal-ism (fun duh men'tl iz uhm) n.

1. (sometimes cap.) a movement in American

Protestantism that arose in the early

part of the 20th century in reaction to

Modernism and that stresses the

infallibility of the Bible not only in

matters of faith and morals but also as

a literal historical record.

2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.

3. strict adherence to any set of basic

ideas or principles.

There is nothing in this definition that says that a fundamentalist will ram his beliefs down someone else's throat.

The traits that defines a fundamentalist is strong conviction and strict adherence.

And I still do not see how anything GWB said makes him a "fundamentalist" any more than any other believing person anywhere in the world.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]

There are lines that cannot be crossed, such as basing laws on religious grounds.

How about those conservatives who want gay marriage banned/not allowed on religious grounds?

There are indeed problems and dilemas with the separation of church and state in the US.

But we're really going off-topic here. Sorry.

Must rush home and feed the kiddies.

[denoir 0]

So basically, what it's saying is that a life of freedom and liberty, as the US indeed attempts to provide to its citizens, is right, versus something like a dictatorship, which is wrong.

So?

He's saying that God thinks those are the right things. And not everybody agrees of that. Especially not the way that America interprets those ideals.

If he's willing to go to war over that then he's no better than those that started the crusades.

Quote[/b] ]There is no US law that forbids an elected official to state his beliefs. There is certainly no way that you can prevent anyone in any country from being influenced by his/her upbringing and philosophy.

When he makes a statement as the president, he is representing an office and not himself as an individual. While his references to his beliefs may be legal, they are certainly unethical.

[9mm 0]

Quote[/b] ]LOL none dude but we dont shift our policys within minutes , neither do many countries attack countries out of that like the way US has done through these fifty years.

They don't shift their policy within minutes, rather 4 to 8 year-cycles. That is why i agree that an inavasion of Iraq would be possible even without the 9/11, but with TBA at the steer.

That is why i don't mind when you critisize particular actions of particular admistration, but when it comes to something like"...the way US has done through fifty years" a certain attitude comes out.

[Acecombat 0]

Oh please american foreign policy is sumemd it very easily in words:

"Our interests come first , screw you (the world)"

Thats what it is , all about double standards and their own interests , if 9/11 should have done anything then it should have increased security within their own country rather then sending armies abroad to fight a stupid war.

What was in american interest btw in supplying Iraq with NBC weapons to attack iran with? Iranis invading american now?

Please their foreign policys are all based on the interim 'in whats good for us' they dont care if it screws later they have a competent army to send over then

The only way their policys shift is because of their double standards i dont care whether it takes a 100 years or one second to change it as long as you stick the principles you keep talking about.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Oh please american foreign policy is sumemd it very easily in words:

"Our interests come first , screw you (the world)"

Thats what it is , all about double standards and their own interests , if 9/11 should have done anything then it should have increased security within their own country rather then sending armies abroad to fight a stupid war.

probably same thing for every nation on this planet.

Quote[/b] ]What was in american interest btw in supplying Iraq with NBC weapons to attack iran with? Iranis invading american now?

Please their foreign policys are all based on the interim 'in whats good for us' they dont care if it screws later they have a competent army to send over then

The only way their policys shift is because of their double standards i dont care whether it takes a 100 years or one second to change it as long as you stick the principles you keep talking about.

on the other hand there are some nations who only are interested in blaming others for their own fault and call others hypocrits when they have their own shortcomings.

[bn880 5]

Oh please american foreign policy is sumemd it very easily in words:

"Our interests come first , screw you (the world)"

Thats what it is , all about double standards and their own interests , if 9/11 should have done anything then it should have increased security within their own country rather then sending armies abroad to fight a stupid war.

probably same thing for every nation on this planet.

Maybe in a really abstract sense I agree, but conciously a lot of coutries actually think of others without necessairly seeing personal and immediate benefit from it. Like actual peace keeping missions, foreign aid to Africa and so on... so personally I can't see Canada caring _only_ for it's own intrests, as with many other nations.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]probably same thing for every nation on this planet.

Come on Ralph !

What is this going to be ?

You want to tell us that Iraq was a necessary target ?

You really want to ?

I want to hear what you have to say to the US parents of the soldiers killed during a war that had NO justification at all.

What do you tell them ?

We had to keep our interest up ?

Jeez you are a moderator.

Do we really have to start from the scratch again ?

It´s obviouse that TBA served it´s own interest only , not even the interests of the US people.

If you think so tell me one thing that changed to the positive for the normal US Joe because of the war and has not to do with contracts you certainly will not benfit of.

Keep the judgement phrases in your pocket as they didn´t work in afghanistan either.