real life wrote:Actually it is very relevant.
No, it is not relevant at all, in that the topic here is why people try to force their religion on others. It has come to this pass because people in this thread have touted the loving character of the Judeo-christian tradition, and than raise petty quibbles when well-grounded criticism is made of that superstitious tradition.
Quote:So apparently you do not support actions in which a nation might defend another nation (not itself) that is small and weak and unable to overcome an aggressor.
That is not at all apparent, just convenient to the snotty, holier than thou tone you wish to take. Whether or not i would support such an action would depend upon the specific circumstances of the situation--but largely, my answer would be no, i would not support war on such a basis,
with the exception of war undertaken by a significant international coalition of nations, the majority of whom were not seeking to profit from the wealth of my homeland.
Quote:So I guess in addition to the current war in Iraq, you opposed with equal volume Clinton's war in Bosnia. Just to be consistent, right?
I refer you to Mr. Emerson's remark in the essay
Self Reliance, to the effect that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a petty mind. Intellectual consistency is not axiomatically a virtue, especially inasmuch as important details of differences in situations are commonly glossed over by those whose oversimplified description of events serves their rhetorical purposes while doing a disservice to truth.
The war in the Balkans is an excellent case in point. In comparing it to Iraq, Serbia was a dangerous polity on the European continent. Iraq had attacked the Persians, with the encouragement and support of a venal and cynical Reagan administration, and lost heavily to no purpose--they stood down. Arrogant and convinced (reasonably so) of the spinelessness of the elder Bush administration, and especially after the appointment of a woman as ambassador to Iraq, the Ba'atist undertook the invasion of Kuwait--and lost very heavily. They did not ever again threaten, even rhetorically their neighbors.
Serbia, on the other hand, invaded Slovenia, they invaded Croatia, they stationed troops on the Macedonian border, they sent thugs and right-wing death squads into Kosovo, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina. They bankrolled ethnic Serb militias in all of the aforementioned regions. In less than 15 years of the beginning of the twentieth century, Serbia was at the center of three Balkan wars, the third of which exploded into the Great War, taking the lives of tens of millions of Europeans. The Serbs had a proven track record of creating murderous instability in their region dating back to 1878. Their leadership were openly in support of the ethnic militias waging war in the other states of what was once Yugoslavia, and openly financed and supported right-wing death squads, in particular the "Tigers." When the United States acted, they acted in the context of a European coalition which provided substantial support and made substantial contributions of troops and equipment, and did so without being bought off by the United States. When the United States military acted, they acted on the Powell doctrine of the use of overwhelming force, and they brought enough players to the party to ensure the settlement. Thousands of Americans have not and will not die in the Balkans. The situation was not at all analogous to Iraq.
Had i had the authority at the time, however, i personally would have let the European bastards reap the consequences of their own inaction. I'd have left them to stew in their own mess.
Quote:Also you probably oppose (not in person, due to age, but in principle) America's involvement in the European theater in WWII since Hitler actually posed little threat to the USA.
I do consider that far too many resources were taken from Kimmel prior to the Japanese attack for deployment in the Atlantic. After the Japanese attack, the reverse was true, and far too many naval resources were taken from the Atlantic, a crucial theater, to be sent to the Pacific. I see that you either choose to ignore, or are ignorant of, the fact that Germany declared war on the United States. Either you choose to ignore or are ignorant of the fact that within days of this declaration, German submarines began to sink American shipping within sight of our shores.
Spare me your moral indignation, your ignorance not simply of history but of current events occuring in your own lifetime is too profound to support your silly argument.
Quote:Back to the relevant point where this war in Canaan took place. Describe Canaanite society as the Hebrews found it when they entered the land west of Jordan. Do you have any idea what it was like? Can you detail the child prostitution that was part of temple worship of the Canaanite fertility gods? How about the child sacrifice that was routine?
Leave aside the fact that the only evidence for such specious contentions about the Canaanites is the propaganda of Hebrew scripture, a highly unreliable source, and let's examine the "virtue" of those Hebrews. Abraham claims to hear voices from the heavens and is prepared to slit his own son's throat at the behest of these alleged voices. In our society, he'd be locked up in a heartbeat, a response i would heartily endorse. Lot is visited by someone he claims is an angel, while living in a walled city in dangerous times, and when his neighbors reasonably complain of it and want to see and interview his visitor, he pushes one of his daughters out the door to appease the crowd--the obvious assumption is that the crowd would have their way with the child, and forget the visitor. Then, for the crime of having been allegedly rude to an ostensible angel, the lord of hosts visits a firey destruction on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (even the Jews were embarrassed by the transparent injustice of this, and long after the fact, began making up stories of the iniquity of the residents of those cities to justify the otherwise unjustifiable--Genesis shows no other reason for the destruction of those cities). Homeless and wandering, Lot seeks shelter in a cave, where we are expected to believe that his daughters of their own initiative had sexual relations with him while he slept, he remaining all the while unaware. The catalogue of horrors visited on the neighbors of the Jews who were not their co-religionists is very long indeed.
Quote:Can we hear you sing "Let It Be" or "Give Peace a Chance" as part of your response?
This attempt at sarcasm is as feeble and witless as your defense of a thoroughly despicable religious tradition. You don't even rate a nice try for this horseshit.
