Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
War is such a silly thing, such a silly, ugly, pointless, unforgiving thing.
As Lenin or Trotsky might say, "You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you!"
O yes, what great roll models they were lol... Well it depends where you live, but my point is even if your country is being invaded, the whole notion of war is pointless, it is fueled by the three 3 poisons of the mind the buddha spoke of, greed, ignorance, and hate.
As in there is no objective comparison that can be made between the Mullahcracy and conservative religious Americans. Any perception of it is a fantasy. One group murders, rapes, and executes its citizens wantonly, and the other does not. The only characteristic they share is theism.
As in there is no objective comparison that can be made between the Mullahcracy and conservative religious Americans. Any perception of it is a fantasy. One group murders, rapes, and executes its citizens wantonly, and the other does not. The only characteristic they share is theism.
Great... objective truth, and a tank.
War is inevitable... the rest of us will just keep out heads down.
The more we cling to the notion of us and them, the more fuel there is for conflict.
Its all a smokescreen to keep the money train going - while we're divided and argue, the war machine is paying out - the arms manufacturers are pulling profits, investments are yielding returns and resources are being traded.
does it matter whether youre machine gunning dissidents or machine gunning the enemy or making machine guns to sell?
Those who have an interest in war or the spoils of war tend to support it by legitimising organised murder as the only course of action - even in evolutionary terms, it is quite a barbaric solution.
The more we cling to the notion of us and them, the more fuel there is for conflict.
Its all a smokescreen to keep the money train going - while we're divided and argue, the war machine is paying out - the arms manufacturers are pulling profits, investments are yielding returns and resources are being traded.
does it matter whether youre machine gunning dissidents or machine gunning the enemy or making machine guns to sell?
Those who have an interest in war or the spoils of war tend to support it by legitimising organised murder as the only course of action - even in evolutionary terms, it is quite a barbaric solution.
Isn't it a bit disingenuous you think to compare Westerners who oppose gay marriage/abortion and fanatical theocrats who machine-gun dissidents, torture political prisoners, execute gays, and fund terrorism the world over?
Not remotely. Read some of what Santorum has said and written in the past. He's truly frightening. He would essentially implement a "Christian" version of the Iranian theocracy, if given his way. He gets a pass from the media because he's handsome and a smooth talker. But read his own words...
As in there is no objective comparison that can be made between the Mullahcracy and conservative religious Americans. Any perception of it is a fantasy. One group murders, rapes, and executes its citizens wantonly, and the other does not. The only characteristic they share is theism.
do you think America would have went to war in Irak without the conservative religious Americans?
if the answer is no then how many people the american have killed during the war in Irak, directly or not?
how does this not compare to what you listed? one is murders in the name of their religion code of conduct, the other is murder in the name of money.
I'm not sure but if i had to choose, i think murder in the name of religion code of conduct is more morally defendable than murder in the name of money.
As in there is no objective comparison that can be made between the Mullahcracy and conservative religious Americans. Any perception of it is a fantasy. One group murders, rapes, and executes its citizens wantonly, and the other does not. The only characteristic they share is theism.
do you think America would have went to war in Irak without the conservative religious Americans? .
I'm not sure... How many conservatives are religious? Do you want to count religious liberals also?
As in there is no objective comparison that can be made between the Mullahcracy and conservative religious Americans. Any perception of it is a fantasy. One group murders, rapes, and executes its citizens wantonly, and the other does not. The only characteristic they share is theism.
do you think America would have went to war in Irak without the conservative religious Americans? .
I'm not sure... How many conservatives are religious? Do you want to count religious liberals also?
I think there's a bit of a tendency on this forum for blame most of the unpleasant things in America on religious conservatives. Or, another example is blaming so much on the media.
There have been plenty of wars conducted under Democrat presidents and Congresses.
I'm not sure... How many conservatives are religious? Do you want to count religious liberals also?
about 89% of republican are religious according to this poll 40% are religious attending in average less than one time a week. 49% are highly religious attending once or more per week.
i'm not blaming the war on the American religious people btw, i'm blaming it on misinformation and general American gullibility and lack of ability to think rationally which seem to have been engineered or nurtured to some degree.
With my previous post, I was simply making a point that it is as easy to dismiss americans by their action as a crazy bunch of deluded religious fanatics as it is to dismiss the Islamic people.
World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, were all almost entirely liberal Democrat-lead ventures.
I'm not sure but if i had to choose, i think murder in the name of religion code of conduct is more morally defendable than murder in the name of money.
You subscribe to the basic Marxist assumption that all wars are fought over money. I do not.
World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, were all almost entirely liberal Democrat-lead ventures.
OK, gang, let's play "name the Presidents". Vietnam: Eisenhower was the first to send "advisers" to Vietnam. Next was Kennedy-Dem. Then--LBJ--Dem. Next was Nixon-Rep. for 2 terms, right? He expanded the war, but it also ended under his Presidency, didn't it?
Who can do Korea? I think WWI and II are in a separate class. Liberating Europe from the Nazis (and defending ourselves against the Japanese) were good things, right? Do "misinformation...gullibility, and lack of ability to think rationally" and "fought for money" apply to WWI & II?
I'd say--fought for resources, not money (Kuwait, Iraq, Vietnam (Eisenhower said upfront it was about oil, I'm told), the war with Mexico, maybe not Korea).
Liberating Europe from the Nazis (and defending ourselves against the Japanese) were good things, right? Do "misinformation...gullibility, and lack of ability to think rationally" and "fought for money" apply to WWI & II?
no, apply to what i was talking about which was Iraq.
I'd say--fought for resources, not money (Kuwait, Iraq, Vietnam (Eisenhower said upfront it was about oil, I'm told), the war with Mexico, maybe not Korea).
does "resources" not equal money in your mind? or was the term money too vague maybe?
World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, were all almost entirely liberal Democrat-lead ventures.
Okay, can we squelch this kind of nonsense right here and now please? The thread is about war (or the potential for it) in the middle east. We're not here to debate which US political party has started more wars in the past. This is utterly irrelevant and serves no purpose but to inflame passions (and it is historically incorrect, btw). End it or I will.
Certainly, I was only responding to the claim that war is a "conservative" enterprise in the US. Historically, it has not been so. That's all I have to say. I did not inject the partisan talk.
As for the Middle East, my concern is that the so-called sham "Arab Spring" will result in the growth of revanchist Islamist governments in Syria, Libya, and Egypt, and elsewhere in North Africa. And in decades to come, this could lead to the restoration of the Caliphate, the first time since 1924.
Comments
War is inevitable... the rest of us will just keep out heads down.
Its all a smokescreen to keep the money train going - while we're divided and argue, the war machine is paying out - the arms manufacturers are pulling profits, investments are yielding returns and resources are being traded.
does it matter whether youre machine gunning dissidents or machine gunning the enemy or making machine guns to sell?
Those who have an interest in war or the spoils of war tend to support it by legitimising organised murder as the only course of action - even in evolutionary terms, it is quite a barbaric solution.
if the answer is no then how many people the american have killed during the war in Irak, directly or not?
how does this not compare to what you listed?
one is murders in the name of their religion code of conduct, the other is murder in the name of money.
I'm not sure but if i had to choose, i think murder in the name of religion code of conduct is more morally defendable than murder in the name of money.
There have been plenty of wars conducted under Democrat presidents and Congresses.
40% are religious attending in average less than one time a week.
49% are highly religious attending once or more per week.
i'm not blaming the war on the American religious people btw, i'm blaming it on misinformation and general American gullibility and lack of ability to think rationally which seem to have been engineered or nurtured to some degree.
With my previous post, I was simply making a point that it is as easy to dismiss americans by their action as a crazy bunch of deluded religious fanatics as it is to dismiss the Islamic people.
anyway i don't believe that either. i believe all wars are fought over power.
money is just one of the expression of power.
Who can do Korea? I think WWI and II are in a separate class. Liberating Europe from the Nazis (and defending ourselves against the Japanese) were good things, right? Do "misinformation...gullibility, and lack of ability to think rationally" and "fought for money" apply to WWI & II?
I'd say--fought for resources, not money (Kuwait, Iraq, Vietnam (Eisenhower said upfront it was about oil, I'm told), the war with Mexico, maybe not Korea).
As for the Middle East, my concern is that the so-called sham "Arab Spring" will result in the growth of revanchist Islamist governments in Syria, Libya, and Egypt, and elsewhere in North Africa. And in decades to come, this could lead to the restoration of the Caliphate, the first time since 1924.