How many are Pro-War?
- Thread starter ratwell71
- Start date
I agree completely. With the three branches of government and the checks and balances in place, there is only so much damage any one president can do. That's not to say a particular president can't do a lot of damage, because they can. They all make mistakes, some make more than others, and some of the consequences are more serious than others. Carter made some whopper mistakes, many of which we are still dealing with. Bush has made some doozies, too, and when looked at in the popular "OMG everything's a crisis" mentality, some of them are pretty bad. But history will look at them for what they are.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Yes you are almost right. Carter had no real friends in Congress, being an outsider and on top of that fighting with Tip o'Neal on things he was vetoing. In the 1980 election, his party almost dumped him, almost.... it was teddy Kennedy who fought against him during the election - he would have been almost as bad as Carter.
I think you are failing to see what I am driving at, the president sets policy for the country, Carter unilaterally decided who we were going to support and who we were not. Unlike military action, i.e. Iraq, the congress does not really tell the president anything when it comes down to diplomatic or policy issues. The military action is something that happens by permission, balance of power within the fed.
The other thing to remember is that we didn't ask him to become a representative of the US on the world scene, he is doing that on his own. This means that he is unsanctioned to represent the people of the US, and undermines our right to representation. He has been very quick to criticize the US on human rights issues - which we have none when you come down to it- but fails to actually do some good in Africa and Asia where the help is needed.
“Free Republic” Site Kind Of Godless “Conservatism” I Am Thankful I Was Delivered From When I Was Made A Christian
This I just had to share. I agree with most things that John states. It will give you a chuckle.
This I just had to share. I agree with most things that John states. It will give you a chuckle.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
It really is hard to comment on this in an intelligent manner without the emotions or repeating the rhetoric of the authors.
The second link looks like what I read from the Germans in the 1920’s, same style of rhetoric and it really makes no righteous argument to support his point of view.
The second link looks like what I read from the Germans in the 1920’s, same style of rhetoric and it really makes no righteous argument to support his point of view.
Actually it is full of factual data. I found him to be very effective and persuasive. So the rhetoric fits the subject.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
So I am assuming you are talking about the second link, what is factual?
I take it you did not bother reading the article. The whole article is full of facts.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Yes I read it and.....
I don't see facts, I see someone complaints and assumptions.
Let’s just get a few quotes;
Ok first thing I read here is the lack of knowledge of the point.
1 – He agrees with someone who also has no clue
2 – He lacks the knowledge of 1934 to 1945. The attack of China, Korea and other countries that did not provoke Japan and their militaristic expansion
3 – as a Christian, he fails to follow the words of Jesus about protecting the innocent, which was one reason we invoked sanctions on Japan that led us to war. Japan’s harsh treatment of the Chinese and the killing of women and children is one of many issues. According to the author, to end this type of war by any means was unjustified and considered terrorism? I think he needs to know what, why and how of the real facts.
4 – we used two weapons that were effective and justified. We were at war with an enemy who would not stop until one man was convinced that it needed to end. This one man was isolated by his very existence and until the time we used these weapons, he would not back down until that country was destroyed. God was on our side then, he gave us these weapons to end a bloody war that killed millions. God is on our side now, read on.
5 – sticking our noses in where it don’t belong, well too bad. The problem has not been the US or the western world but the fundamentalist themselves. Ron Paul’s solution is to hide in a shell which is what they and a lot of other people want so they can do what they want in the world, well we could not hide in 1917, and can’t now. Either way the better solution is to strengthen countries to do this on their own but our foreign policies has been so screwed up since Carter.
6 – how does he know what God is thinking or if he is in deed punishing us. The last time I checked, there are not too many things that are happening to us by a supreme being that would cause me to think God has forsaken the United States.
OK Let’s look at the first paragraph.
1 - We haven’t forgotten god, as a nation we have the highest religious participation in the world.
2 – I ask again, how does he determine that we are being d*mned by God.
The second paragraph shows that this is a b*tch session between him and another site. Somewhere in the article, he assumes that there is free speech on the web, guess he lives in a fantasy world.
Here is one thing that really bugs me, if abortion is a problem, then focus on one issue. He has brought in abortion and war together, calling the war Godless and unconstitutional, again trying to figure out what facts bear this as a truth.
Godless?
No not at all, just the opposite. I think that the troops are doing Gods work in many ways, one is compassion – Duh isn’t that what Jesus said?
Unconsitutional?
Oh come on… this is such a stretch and borders on the insane.
To set the record straight, Roe v. Wade is about privacy in all reality but no one has been able to bring together any amount of people to actually elect the people who can change this, so it is not the president’s fault – that just illustrates ignorance on how the system works.
Working backwards, I don’t see any facts bearing the idea that God does not bless these great people who are over there. With the low death rate, with the technology we have available and the mission that allows people we conquered to live freely and allow them to worship God as they see fit without interference is not an anti-God war. Reading backwards again, he makes the point that this is a real battle of is “Godly people (Bible-believing Christians) versus non-Christians” which is the same argument that was used during the crusades. I question his position about what is right and what is wrong, he fails to identify the people in his own religion who are damaging it, he classify people who believe differently as “Satan’s kids”, which is one thing that is unchristian as they get.
Greg,
We were not justified in using the bomb on Japan nor we justified going to war with Iraq. You are using your beliefs to justify this just like you are claiming that John is using his beliefs to justify his stance. The facts are we did use the bomb on Japan, Bush is a liar, our government has gotten away from being a republic, there is corruption from within, and we are getting more socialistic by the day, Bush has brought Big Brother back to life, etc.
He quotes the Bible as his basis. If you believe in the what the Bible tells us then you know there is no swinging, "Thou shalt not kill" to back up or justify killing.
Killing, murderering, maiming, hurting, or anything else you want to fill in the blanks with.
Tell me what is the difference between what we call terrorism and what we are doing in Iraq?
Define terrorism. Tell me who the enemy is, can you?
This is like playing football with the invisible man. If you cannot see or define your opponent then how can you win the game.
Our borders are no more secure today than they were when the "terrorists" attacked. How do you explain the fact that we have had no more attacks? Hmmm.
Heck, Bush has sold some of our toll ways and ports to foreigners that could be terrorists.
We were not justified in using the bomb on Japan nor we justified going to war with Iraq. You are using your beliefs to justify this just like you are claiming that John is using his beliefs to justify his stance. The facts are we did use the bomb on Japan, Bush is a liar, our government has gotten away from being a republic, there is corruption from within, and we are getting more socialistic by the day, Bush has brought Big Brother back to life, etc.
He quotes the Bible as his basis. If you believe in the what the Bible tells us then you know there is no swinging, "Thou shalt not kill" to back up or justify killing.
Killing, murderering, maiming, hurting, or anything else you want to fill in the blanks with.
Tell me what is the difference between what we call terrorism and what we are doing in Iraq?
Define terrorism. Tell me who the enemy is, can you?
This is like playing football with the invisible man. If you cannot see or define your opponent then how can you win the game.
Our borders are no more secure today than they were when the "terrorists" attacked. How do you explain the fact that we have had no more attacks? Hmmm.
Heck, Bush has sold some of our toll ways and ports to foreigners that could be terrorists.
Wow, it sounds like America really sucks.
Actually America does not suck. The ignorant people that help create a big government do.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Let’s tackle Bush first. Name one president who hasn’t lied? He is the same as Clinton, who was the same as Bush #1, who was the same as Reagan and so on. Our government got away from a republic not under Bush, but under FDR. We were more of a socialist government under carter than we are under Bush. The problem, and I got to be blunt with this is that the hate bush crowd is all over the place – starting with the ‘stolen’ election to our rights ‘vaporizing’ to a lot of other things and they can’t get a grip on reality of things, they lost an election and they hate the person who won. Their hatred is in the way of their reasoning and their patriotism; this really makes them look bad and like fools at the same time gets to many people to turn them off on any reasonable conversation. Like this author, he has a chip about being kicked off another website, he fails to understand what free speech is about and uses analogies that are old at best without facts that show me he is a revisionist, poor one at that.
Now the religion part, here is a bit of news for you; I think people like Aquinas and others who studied before Gutenberg set the type on the bible had it right, the people are not prepared to interpret the Bible. Sorry if this offends anyone but the fact is the Bible is a man made item and as such is interpreted to fit man’s needs and points of view, not God’s. I question the author on how he has such an intimate knowledge of what God is doing to us or not doing to us, it is not him or any other man that can make that call, just like the preachers and ‘experts’ who make claims of what some passages mean or that all Muslims, Hindi and Jews are the devil’s children. The author makes a claim about 9.11, about Katrina, about the fires in California but does not look at the positives, why? Three disasters mean nothing, if we had plagues and famine. When Abortion is interjected as a disaster, it makes me wonder what a man made problem is doing there other then indicating the author is clueless.
When you really study the bible in the way it was written, Latin or Greek or even Hebrew, in many cases there are more questions that are raised than solved. I noticed that there are a lot of people who actually take up a serious study of it and are left questioning their religion. I for one fall in that category and I decided to ignore the people who preach scripture and follow what I believe sets me apart from the claimant, being a good person to all.
I see more unpatriotic comments and a lack of true allegiance to the country by some ‘Christians’ than I have seen from any other group, makes me wonder what is up with that.
Now Japan, you don’t know what you are talking about, no disrespect. So let me explain a few things to you.
First off Japan was a very militaristic country with one leader. Every person owed an allegiance to that one person, no in between, no compromise. If he said die, you died. You didn’t go kicking and screaming or anything like that. What I think what many miss, we have a different culture, we make free choices and we were allowed to question authority, they were not. In fact they were conditioned for generations to think and act for the emperor who was God. Even the allegiance thing many miss, in this day and age, religion has not reinforced commitments and oaths, just the opposite but anywho, people in Japan and in fact German were lost without an allegiance. In Germany they had one problem with ‘democracy’, there was no oath to the country or anyone person (you can read about that from the Nuremberg trails and Goring’s comments).
Japan felt that the Asians were beneath them, at first they respected the Brits, aussies and Dutch, they thought the POWs would understand and stand up with them – this is a true fact bore out in one of the books written after the war by a Japanese General (I don’t remember the name but I have the book somewhere). It turned into a blood fest with the Japanese once they realized that the POWs were going to resist everything.
The war crimes were more than what the Germans did. First there was Korea, the Japanese exploiting the country, enslaving women and so on. They invaded China and killed what many estimate over 10 million civilians and POWs under Japanese rule.
So here are a few –
Nanking Massacre – 430,000 est
Changjiao massacre - 30,000 est
Manila massacre – over 100,000 est
Sook Ching massacre – 50,000
Those are the large ones but let’s not forget –
Banka Island massacre – 22 nurses were murdered
Kalagong Massacre – a whole village of 600 were wiped out
Parit Sulong Massacre – where POWs who were wounded were killed, about 150
Alexandra Hospital massacre – killing patients and staff
Bataan Death March – killing POWs who were wounded along the way
Laha massacre – where 300 Dutch POWs were executed
Panjiayu Massacre – where 3000 Chinese were killed
Tol Plantation massacre – where 150 Aussie POWs were killed
On to other war crimes-
Unit 731 which carried out human experimentation and tests on live people, including POWs and children
Biological warfare which was done on Chinese, mainly bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax
The use of chemical warfare, some of this was used on Aussie POWs with that the Changde chemical weapon attack
Starvation of millions
Torture of POWs
Cannibalism
Slave labor
So when you say we committed a terrorist act by ending a war like that, you forget the lives lost to end the bloodshed. I don’t recall our government doing any of this, I don’t think that we went around leveling whole towns and killing civilians like they did but we used two weapons to stop a war that would not have been stopped until that man in that palace said so.
The revisionist today said the war was lost already and Japan knew about it but they forget a few things;
1-they never fought any Japanese to know what they were like
2-they don’t understand the allegiance that was built into the minds of the Japanese people, they would have fought to the death without hesitation
3-The bigger problem was simply they didn’t know how to lose. Truman during Potsdam was informed of the new prime minister’s speech and this guy used indecisive words which indicated exactly that.
4-There was also the problem within the military under Tojo type leaders who were committed to fight till the country was no more
We used the weapon justly, if we didn’t then a lot of others would have died needlessly.
AND
You forget something else….
Using the atomic weapons were not as bad as what we did to Tokyo (the first bombing caused 250,000 Chinese men, women and children their lives), Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, Yokohama, Fukuyama and Toyama (the last two were almost wiped off the face of the earth) but lets not forget Berlin, Hamburg, Kassel, Pforzheim, Mainz, Essen, Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Cologne Braunschweig, Lübeck, Rostock, Bremen, Kiel, Hanover, Frankfurt, Mannheim, Stuttgart, Schweinfurt… oh and Dresden.
Well actually the Ten Commandments says Thou shall not murder. The translation is off with thou shall not kill. In the Torah (I may be mistaken because I don’t have my copy or my notes here) but murder is the unjust killing of another which means that there is no protecting of an innocent life, no protecting one’s self or no fighting in a war. Yes war. Hate to break this to you but Jesus was Jewish and actually the Torah is part of what he practiced as a Rabbi.
We don't take war lightly. We go to war for a number of reasons, one is to protect and the other is to defend, which I remember something in the bible about that, don't know where it is but its there.
The last time I looked we were not doing a bunch of wanton destruction in the world but preventing a lot.
Well the difference is clear, we are not in there as conquerors, we are there as liberators. Terrorist lets use Iranians for a moment, want to take the country over and impose their way of life and their system of government. We have not done either if you didn’t notice. The problem with your way of thinking is you want to define things to actually quantify the existence of what is deemed as a terrorist but you can’t. See the problem, even one recognized in the intelligence world is that anyone can be one but they also can be a Marxist or a Leninist too.
The fact that it takes a big effort to seek out and identify people how want to kill or hurt us, and I give these guys in the government a lot of credit for that work.
From Wikipedia, most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.
I agree that our borders are less secure but….. Lets put it a different way, we have better intelligence work flow, we have improved some things but let others get messed up. The real problem is not Bush, he has been consistent, and the problem is;
The congress
The media
And the people
The one thing that I think has helped is his consistently. We are dealing with people who are not dumb. These people know that there is something wrong with a president who is ignoring polls and doing what he wants to do, a lot like Reagan, right? Well the problem is that they want Obama or Hillary in office and they know that these two will look at polls and make decisions based on polls – a very VERY poor way to lead.
And who is that?
I blame FDR and the people who think Social Security is a right.
I blame LBJ who created the great society to wipe out poverty which we now have the richest poor people in the world.
I blame Nixon, Ford and Carter for creating cabinet level departments that don’t do anything for the country.
I blame Clinton and Gore for their reinventing government
I also blame the people for their stupidity and the greed and ‘I want it now’ coupled with ‘I want my mommy attitude’ which allows people in government to stay in power.
The one thing that most miss is the increased in government jobs across all sectors of the governments right now, and it is causing problems for Cities and States who are running into a funding issue. The way to combat unemployment and job lost is to create government jobs and fill them. Think about that for a while.
hapipupi3
Expert Expediter
As the daughter of a deceased Army Engineer Corps vet, I've been on the family end of seeing a father go off to war. I've never been in military service my self, but I've known the fear for my fathers' safety.
IMHO-- I think we should have brought our troops HOME when Saddam Hussein was executed.
I DO understand that we need to keep the terrorists "over there", but what about our own country? We would be better off with our troops ready to protect us AT HOME.
IMHO-- I think we should have brought our troops HOME when Saddam Hussein was executed.
I DO understand that we need to keep the terrorists "over there", but what about our own country? We would be better off with our troops ready to protect us AT HOME.
(((Gave it a thought.)))
(((Again, thanks for your views. I have always found you to be full of knowledge. Keep sharing it.)))
These different views surely make for great conversation.
Last edited:
Greg,
I think you are confusing the word Jew as a religion. I must tell you that Judaism is a religion not being a Jew. Judaism was not practiced by Jesus. I know plenty of Jews that do not practice this religion. Me for one.
What does it mean to be Christian? Can a Jew be a Christian or must he/she practice Judaism? Can an Indian practice say Shintoism rather than Buddhism?
Religion was created by man not God. It's this commonality that binds a people. This is where man starts to translate the Bible to his/her liking. If I don't agree with the Catholics then I might choose the other religions. Whatever floats my boat or agrees with the way I live. I do not believe in any religion.
Judaism: this religion considered as forming the basis of the cultural and social identity of the Jews.
Shintoism. the native religion of Japan, primarily a system of nature and ancestor worship.
Buddhism: a religion, originated in India by Buddha (Gautama) and later spreading to China, Burma, Japan, Tibet, and parts of southeast Asia, holding that life is full of suffering caused by desire and that the way to end this suffering is through enlightenment that enables one to halt the endless sequence of births and deaths to which one is otherwise subject.
Not to assume you did not know this but just in case.
I think you are confusing the word Jew as a religion. I must tell you that Judaism is a religion not being a Jew. Judaism was not practiced by Jesus. I know plenty of Jews that do not practice this religion. Me for one.
What does it mean to be Christian? Can a Jew be a Christian or must he/she practice Judaism? Can an Indian practice say Shintoism rather than Buddhism?
Religion was created by man not God. It's this commonality that binds a people. This is where man starts to translate the Bible to his/her liking. If I don't agree with the Catholics then I might choose the other religions. Whatever floats my boat or agrees with the way I live. I do not believe in any religion.
Judaism: this religion considered as forming the basis of the cultural and social identity of the Jews.
Shintoism. the native religion of Japan, primarily a system of nature and ancestor worship.
Buddhism: a religion, originated in India by Buddha (Gautama) and later spreading to China, Burma, Japan, Tibet, and parts of southeast Asia, holding that life is full of suffering caused by desire and that the way to end this suffering is through enlightenment that enables one to halt the endless sequence of births and deaths to which one is otherwise subject.
Not to assume you did not know this but just in case.
Last edited:
We have had similar experiences. I agree 100 percent with your statement.
If you knew someone was planning to come to your house and blow it up, would you be better off standing out in the front yard with a gun waiting for them to get there, or would you be better off going to them, where they are, and dealing with them on their soil rather than letting them even get to yours in the first place? I'd much rather fight the enemy over there, than over here.
Be that as it may, that's not even why we're in Iraq.
Be that as it may, that's not even why we're in Iraq.