The reason I ask is that you are starting to "sound like" a stuffed-shirt prig.
Enough. Our apologies to the people who have been civil, but it's time to lock this thread for 24 hours until you can all let this go. Enough of the name-calling. Enough of the ad hominems. Enough of the nitpicking. The Terms of Service are linked at the bottom of every page, for everyone to see. Kindly review them. This thread has a subject, but it seems to have been forgotten. It might be a good idea to get back to that subject when the thread is reopened. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Moderating Staff at Able2Know.com
Yea, though I walk through the valley of hyperbole and misconstrued insults and perceived vitriol,
thy staff and thy staff's rod, they comfort me.
Blessed be the staff and their rod.
Now, back to topic.
The utter shock and dismay of the entire Arab world regarding the decimation of the 5th largest army in the world at the hands of the US has certainly turned this conflict into a war.
The message from virtually every ME country that they "didn't necessarily want to see Saddam WIN, they just wish he would have put up a better fight (i.e. more American's would have DIED)" is revolting as much as it is enlightening.
The time has come for a reevaluation of relationships with ALL countries of the world.
Those that support and back us will get our backing and support.
Those who don't, won't.
It can't be any simpler or clearer than that.
maxsdadeo wrote:Yea, though I walk through the valley of hyperbole and misconstrued insults and perceived vitriol,
thy staff and thy staff's rod, they comfort me.
Blessed be the staff and their rod.
Now, back to topic.
The utter shock and dismay of the entire Arab world regarding the decimation of the 5th largest army in the world at the hands of the US has certainly turned this conflict into a war.
The message from virtually every ME country that they "didn't necessarily want to see Saddam WIN, they just wish he would have put up a better fight (i.e. more American's would have DIED)" is revolting as much as it is enlightening.
The time has come for a reevaluation of relationships with ALL countries of the world.
Those that support and back us will get our backing and support.
Those who don't, won't.
It can't be any simpler or clearer than that.
Spoken like a true Christian. I'm sure Jesus would be very proud of that sentiment.
Sorry Moderator. I couldn't resist.
FrankA; a little disappointed; you know better than to link Christ (Jesus), who had many good things to say and do, to "Christians"!
Christians
BoGoWo wrote:FrankA; a little disappointed; you know better than to link Christ (Jesus), who had many good things to say and do, to "Christians"!
Like my wife says, "There's only one thing more frightening than a Christian... (Drum roll) and that is,... two Christians.
Ok, that's three.
Pressing on,
Frank, I find it fascinating that you would invoke the name of someone in whom you do not even believe.
Sorry, I COULDN'T RESIST EITHER!!
To those who may find it hard to justify the actions in Iraq in a "Godly" context I would offer this.
Read the Old Testament.
We are engaged in a cultural, economic and political war.
There are two sides to this conflict, ours, and those who oppose us.
"There are two sides to this conflict, ours, and those who oppose us."
I have to disagree. That is only looking at things in "Black and White." somewhere in-between there is a common ground. A radical is a radical, which ever side of the spectrum you find yourself on.
Both sides are right, both sides are wrong. To accept that which is wrong, just because your side tells you so, is to fall victim of rhetoric and propaganda. If we need three sides (or more) to these issues, then I'm all for it. I would love to see the end, to this two party political system (I'm tiring having to vote a full Republican slate.)
ferrous; just across your northern border....................
[It's like "OZ"]
Sorry, ferrous.
I don't subscribe to Moral Relativism.
Though I certainly understand those that do.
Nor Do I
Moral Relativism:
I disagree again. Arguments against Moral Relativism seems to be based on a "core set of values that are common to all societies and are in fact necessary for any society to exist. These values are (1) we should care for children, (2) we should tell the truth, and (3) we should not murder."
I can find no justification, for a society to co-exist with another, that can't abide these basic rights, that should be provided to all inhabitants of the human race.
My tenets, definitely don't abide by "mob-rule", or accepting that which is enforced upon me, by local social values. I am still trying to understand, that which in the very nature of humans, seems to be held as true.
Caring, honesty, honor, compassionÂ…
Again, I try to lead my life with a set of rules, written over twenty-five hundred years ago.
Eightfold Noble Path
1.) Right understanding: Understanding the truth about the universality of suffering and knowing the path to its extinction.
2.) Right thought: A mind free of ill will, and cruelty. (deleted sensuous desire)
3.) Right speech: Abstaining from lying, harsh language and gossip.
4.) Right conduct: Avoiding killing, stealing and unlawful sexual intercourse.
5.) Right livelihood: Avoiding any occupation that brings harm directly or indirectly to any other living being.
6.) Right endeavor: Avoiding unwholesome and evil things.
7.) Right mindfulness: Awareness in contemplation.
8.) Right Meditation: Concentration.
wow, I'm stunned that this thread was locked! Actually, I did not think anything was bad enough to warrant it being locked. The topic has certainly brought out the strong emotions in many posters. As has other related political threads. I don't remember those being locked, but maybe they were and I missed it, just as it happens I missed the 24 hours that this thread was locked.
All in all, I haven't seen any horrible epithets or demeaning statements than would otherwise ensue in political discussions face-to-face or in the press. The vast majority of the conversation has been in the form of conversation and much of value has been added. Hey, even from those of differing views than my rather strong ones! At that, as they say "is a good thing".
Well, back to the subject: do you remember that there was argument after the "Gulf War" as to whether or not it was a real war, a 'foreign' war, and there was some question as to the benefits the US military force would receive? As near as I can tell, this "whatever" MUST be called a "war" in order to avoid similar issues, which would be most embarassing to the US administration if they occured in two outta two Bushes....
maxsdadeo wrote:Frank, I find it fascinating that you would invoke the name of someone in whom you do not even believe.
Sorry, I COULDN'T RESIST EITHER!!
One: I often invoke the name of Santa Claus -- but I don't "believe" in that jolly gentleman. Why would someone be limited to only invoking the name of people in whom they believe.
Two: Show me anywhere -- here or in Abuzz -- where I have ever said that I do not "believe" in Jesus. (Save your time, you will never find it, because I've never said it.)
Three: There was a point to my comment which bears on the theme of this thread. I notice you did not address it.
maxsdadeo wrote:Frank, I find it fascinating that you would invoke the name of someone in whom you do not even believe.
Sorry, I COULDN'T RESIST EITHER!!
One: I often invoke the name of Santa Claus -- but I don't "believe" in that jolly gentleman. Why would someone be limited to only invoking the name of people in whom they believe?
Two: Show me anywhere -- here or in Abuzz -- where I have ever said that I do not "believe" in Jesus. (Save your time, you will never find it, because I've never said it.)
Three: There was a point to my comment which bears on the theme of this thread. I notice you did not address it.
If there is a way to drop the current dispute between a few posters who I do appreciate (by the way) then perhaps this thread won't get locked again. Since I strongly believe that the topica of "what we call this whatever" between the US and Iraq is extremely important now and certainly in history to come, am hoping that we can continue.
Any comments on the issue about the Gulf War after-effects regarding the benefits military participants received or did not receive? Certainly the whole "Gulf War Syndrome" brought out many of the fine details the public would not have realized as to the term of War as was or was not applied.
Yes I did, Frank re: my OT comment.
Cobalt: Your words ring true, thank you for adding them.
Perhaps you or someone else could help me figure something out.
IF there was and is a "Gulf War Syndrome" as there is evidence to believe, is it not the result of WMD used by Saddam Hussein and therefore proof that what we are doing in Iraq is justified?
Whether or not there is a "Gulf War Syndrome", there certainly is a "Gulf War Syndrome Subculture", not dissimilar in some respects to the "Agent Orange" subculture, with which in fact it is somewhat intertwined. As typical in such matters, all the divergent positions in the Gulf War Syndrome Issue are bolstered by credentials and statistics of more or less equal weight. There are plenty of websites.
Oh, and I recall having read somewhere (but don't recall where) that a leading suspect culprit in numerous widely-evidenced Gulf War Syndrome Symptoms is the relatively long-term inhalation of toxin-laden petroleum smoke. Apparently even at low levels of lengthy exposure, ill effect often is noted, and is consistent with much of the symptomology reported of Gulf War Syndrome, both respiratory and nervous system. There is no doubt war itself has an effect on the nervous system ... that effect, its depth and its expression, varies from individual to individual.
ok, this is the part where we could use some input from dys - in his former occupation AND his military service, I would bet he has an informed opinion... anyone seen him around?
