George W. Bush and the Almighty

I don't know what the stats are, exactly, real life, but you keep stressing that China's military is twice the size of that of the US. I will assume that you have the facts right and that the statement is true. In that case, China's military is much smaller that the US as a percentage of the country's population. I thought they had a bigger army than that. Only twice as big as the US?

C.I. has it right on the weaponry. Even with a potential work force of close to a billion people, China can't possibly keep on flooding the civilian market with consumer goods and, at the same time, manufacture enough tanks, fighter planes etc. to keep the military adequately supplied. And if you've tried to buy anything not made in China recently, you know which manufacturing arm gets priority these days. China's strength lies in its economic potential, not its miliitary might.

0 Replies

China will continue to grow their GDP, but at the expense of the workers that produce all those clothes and toys for the world markets. Their pay is so low, they can't even afford to buy the same goods they produce, nor anything that's imported. Their buying power is zilch. That's going to be a bigger problem for every year China keeps their currency at fixed rates rather than letting it float in the world marketplace.

Yes, there are new millionaires in China, but the vast majority of Chinese still farm by oxen, and they're demonstrating and fighting the local governments all the time, because they're not getting paid adequately for their food, but are taxed heavily. Their internal termoil is just going to grow.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
OK so China has an army that is twice the size of the US army. But the facts are irrelevant , right CI?

America is just a bully plain and simple, right?

America's military has served long, thankless periods keeping the peace in Europe after WWII ( how many troops still are in Europe?) , protecting South Korea from aggression long after the Korean war (no oil there, I thought that's all we ever went to war over, CI ) and in Japan ( how many US troops still there? ) so that Japan has no need to militarize and become a threat to the region (don't laugh, it could have happened after WWII had not the US presence remained, just look at Germany between WWI and WWII ).

Yes a sizable percentage of the US military is dedicated to protecting the peace around the world. We're just bullies, right?

We throw money to the military just to throw our weight around. Unrepentant , power mad USA. How evil, eh?

We spilled our guts to rescue Europe, not once, but twice in the last century.

We have time and again rescued weaker nations from aggressors. All without your thanks.

Did it serve our interests too? Yes, peace is in everybody's interest. But you don't often see other nations spilling blood to keep the peace like the USA.

Should we just pull back and let terrorists have at it?

We were attacked by terrorists AT LEAST 4 times during the reign of King Bill , and we did nothing substantial in response, inviting further aggression.

4 times:

World Trade Center attack #1 -- 1993
Khobar Towers -- 1996
2 Embassies in Africa bombed -- 1998
USS Cole attacked -- 2000

Ignoring aggression invites further aggression.

Ok, so I won't bother you with the facts anymore.

China feeds and supplies a military presence over twice the size of the US military. (They also have NO ongoing commitments to keep the peace anywhere in the world.) But we're the bad guys. We're the ones 'spending more to militarize'. Yeah right.

Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

I don't know what the stats are, exactly, real life, but you keep stressing that China's military is twice the size of that of the US. I will assume that you have the facts right and that the statement is true. In that case, China's military is much smaller that the US as a percentage of the country's population. I thought they had a bigger army than that. Only twice as big as the US?

It is AT LEAST twice as big.

In a closed society like China, it's hard to get accurate figures, and these are much more likely to be understated.

China and the USA have roughly the same amount of territory to defend and they have a standing military AT LEAST twice as big as the US. Why would that be necessary?

In addition, as I pointed out, a sizable percentage of our military is stationed overseas protecting other countries (Europe, Japan, Korea, etc).

China has no such commitments or obligations.

They contribute almost none of their military to keeping the peace in hotspots around the world.

So why such a big military for a country that no one is threatening?

On the other hand, China is doing some saber rattling of it's own in regard to Taiwan and has issued threats in regard to the west coast of the USA.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

China will continue to grow their GDP, but at the expense of the workers that produce all those clothes and toys for the world markets.

Yes but not at the expense of their military. It is first in line for the cash, and that is the point of this discussion, not the plight of the Chinese worker.

China's investment in it's military is much greater than the US when measured as a percentage of GDP. And this will continue even as the GDP increases.

In America, we foolishly buy as many Chinese items as we can, because they are cheap. Thus we (not our government, but we) finance their militarization.

0 Replies

real is full of BS. China spends most of their money on construction.

0 Replies

The question is not 'what does China spend most of their money on?'

The question is 'which country spends the greatest amount on their military?'

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

He was just kidding.

What was the question on this thread again?

Was it an observation that nearly half the population of the US hold beliefs which are in direct conflict with known physics and science? And that those people are influencing the direction of the government?

Regardless of how preposterous these beliefs may seem, they exist, and will have an inevitible effect on the world around them. This is a natural condition. It must be played out.

We are experiencing the evolution of human perception as represented by fundamental belief structures. And it's accelerating as our ability to communicate (globally and quickly) increase.

Without any direct affect on personal survival, cultural philosophies are not guided by normal biological selection criteria. The fact that religious fanatics don't know the true age of the Earth, or that they evolved naturally does not directly affect their ability to reproduce, or to spread their ideas.

The selection criteria which remains, is the ability to 'convince'.

The battle seems very balanced, and can probably go either way in the long run. The one bit of imbalance I can see is that science does dip into biological survival when it comes to medicine, and it's here that we find the true-believers shifting their allegience. I bet if you too that 44% of US people who believe in a young earth, or Adam and Eve, a majority of them would still turn to professional medicine if their kids were seriously ill. Ultimately, survival and effectiveness (the strengths of science) trump philosophies.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

Only when he was having his bum spanked.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Nothing comparable to what the US or our allies have. Also, how do you suppose China will transport all those military men and supplies? To where, and how? And for what purpose?

So are you wanting the US to reduce our military expenditures to the level of the Chinese?

That's really your desire, isn't it? We shouldn't attempt to do any more than what they do, right?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

I did not say that whatsoever. I was challenging your Chrisitan PRO WAR stance.

They seem to be at odds with each other.

0 Replies

I do find it rather hypocritical that "Christians" would support the Iraq war and the death penalty -- and they even find Biblical justification for their beliefs. Are hatred and killing truly Christian beliefs?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

I did not say that whatsoever.

Your comment seemed to imply that you thought Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek was applicable to relations between nations, hence descriptive of a principle for determining foreign policy and / or military budgets.

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should come right out and say what you did mean by quoting Jesus' words in that context.

maporsche wrote:

I was challenging your Chrisitan PRO WAR stance.

They seem to be at odds with each other.

I don't think I said anywhere that I am pro-war. We were discussing the relative sizes of the military budgets of modern countries.

There is certainly nothing in the NT where Jesus forbids participation in military affairs, so I am not sure what you think is at odds with what.

Perhaps some specifics?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

I did not say that whatsoever.

Your comment seemed to imply that you thought Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek was applicable to relations between nations, hence descriptive of a principle for determining foreign policy and / or military budgets.

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should come right out and say what you did mean by quoting Jesus' words in that context.

maporsche wrote:
I was challenging your Chrisitan PRO WAR stance.

They seem to be at odds with each other.

I don't think I said anywhere that I am pro-war. We were discussing the relative sizes of the military budgets of modern countries.

There is certainly nothing in the NT where Jesus forbids participation in military affairs, so I am not sure what you think is at odds with what.

Perhaps some specifics?

RL, we've had this discussion before on another thread, I have no desire to re-hash it again. I will try to find the thread for you though and you can relive it.

But just one thing. Do you think that Jesus would condone or approve of war in general, and the Iraq war specifically.

0 Replies

maporsche, there is no sense in trying to argue with real life. Real life needs to get a real life.

There are no real Christians these days. These folks are Christianists who will cheerfully spout biblical verses to back up their totally non-Christian agenda. Just like the Islamist terrorists cheerfully spout suras from the Quran. It means nothing. It is a tale full of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

I did not say that whatsoever.

Your comment seemed to imply that you thought Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek was applicable to relations between nations, hence descriptive of a principle for determining foreign policy and / or military budgets.

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should come right out and say what you did mean by quoting Jesus' words in that context.

maporsche wrote:
I was challenging your Chrisitan PRO WAR stance.

They seem to be at odds with each other.

I don't think I said anywhere that I am pro-war. We were discussing the relative sizes of the military budgets of modern countries.

There is certainly nothing in the NT where Jesus forbids participation in military affairs, so I am not sure what you think is at odds with what.

Perhaps some specifics?

RL, we've had this discussion before on another thread, I have no desire to re-hash it again. I will try to find the thread for you though and you can relive it.

But just one thing. Do you think that Jesus would condone or approve of war in general, and the Iraq war specifically.

Well, I answered the first part re: war in general before you asked it.

To the second, I think that expecting GWB to have the omniscience of Jesus is somewhat unreasonable. So, to look back now in hindsight and say 'was this a good idea?' is simply political gamesmanship on the left.

Both R's and D's voted in large numbers to depose Saddam. The UN gave it's approval also, before getting cold feet when they realized that Bush was not all talk like Clinton.

Saddam was in violation of the UN orders for years ( if you care what the UN says then that's a big deal, if not, then read on )

I think the mass graves in Iraq and the large numbers of Iraqis gassed and murdered by Saddam do make a strong case for going in and protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

As an Independent, I supported and do support the president's goals for Iraq and for containing terrorism in the Middle East.

I could give you a list of dozens of things on which I disagree with GWB, but this isn't one of them.

Have you read Ed Koch's defense of Bush's actions? You should.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

I did not say that whatsoever.

Your comment seemed to imply that you thought Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek was applicable to relations between nations, hence descriptive of a principle for determining foreign policy and / or military budgets.

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should come right out and say what you did mean by quoting Jesus' words in that context.

maporsche wrote:
I was challenging your Chrisitan PRO WAR stance.

They seem to be at odds with each other.

I don't think I said anywhere that I am pro-war. We were discussing the relative sizes of the military budgets of modern countries.

There is certainly nothing in the NT where Jesus forbids participation in military affairs, so I am not sure what you think is at odds with what.

Perhaps some specifics?

RL, we've had this discussion before on another thread, I have no desire to re-hash it again. I will try to find the thread for you though and you can relive it.

But just one thing. Do you think that Jesus would condone or approve of war in general, and the Iraq war specifically.

Well, I answered the first part re: war in general before you asked it.

To the second, I think that expecting GWB to have the omniscience of Jesus is somewhat unreasonable. So, to look back now in hindsight and say 'was this a good idea?' is simply political gamesmanship on the left.

Both R's and D's voted in large numbers to depose Saddam. The UN gave it's approval also, before getting cold feet when they realized that Bush was not all talk like Clinton.

Saddam was in violation of the UN orders for years ( if you care what the UN says then that's a big deal, if not, then read on )

I think the mass graves in Iraq and the large numbers of Iraqis gassed and murdered by Saddam do make a strong case for going in and protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

As an Independent, I supported and do support the president's goals for Iraq and for containing terrorism in the Middle East.

I could give you a list of dozens of things on which I disagree with GWB, but this isn't one of them.

Have you read Ed Koch's defense of Bush's actions? You should.

"Not Forbiding" war is not the same as condoning it and is not the same as supporting it. Jesus didn't specifically forbid stem-cell research......etc. He didn't specifically forbid a lot of things, but I doubt he'd support everything he didn't forbid.

I'm not asking for GWB to be omniscient. I'm asking what Jesus would think today, yesterday, 4 years ago, 4 years from now, 100 years from now. What do you think he'd think.

0 Replies

As I said, I think the mass graves and the thousands murdered by Saddam with chemical weapons, various means of torture, etc do make a very good case for protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

We went into Kuwait in 1989 (Gulf war I) to undo Saddam's invasion of a neighboring country. That conflict never ended. We had only a cease fire , but we had obligated ourselves, as did the whole international community, to make sure that Saddam could not threaten his neighbors, etc anymore.

Saddam was in constant violation of those cease fire agreements.

We kept our obligation. Much of the rest of the 'civilized world' got cold feet when it came time to act.

I think keeping our word, even when deserted by many of our 'friends', and protecting the defenseless are consistent with Christian principles.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Here's some Ed Koch for ya, if you haven't looked him up yet.

Yeah, I know he's a right wing, Republican hack, right? Read him anyway.

from http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0905/koch.php3

Quote:

Of course the major flaw with Koch's idea of 'leaving the UN in charge' is that they won't do it.

The terminally cold feet of the UN when it comes to dealing with Iraq reveal it's ineptness and it's uselessness.

The money saved by closing the UN could do a lot of good elsewhere.

0 Replies

George W. Bush and the Almighty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know